Explaining the accelerating expansion of the universe without dark energy

A still from an animation that shows the expansion of the universe in the standard 'Lambda Cold Dark Matter' cosmology, which includes dark energy (top left panel, red), the new Avera model, that considers the structure of the universe and eliminates the need for dark energy (top middle panel, blue), and the Einstein-de Sitter cosmology, the original model without dark energy (top right panel, green). The panel at the bottom shows the increase of the 'scale factor' (an indication of the size) as a function of time, where 1Gya is 1 billion years. The growth of structure can also be seen in the top panels. One dot roughly represents an entire galaxy cluster. Units of scale are in Megaparsecs (Mpc), where 1 Mpc is around 3 million million million km. Credit: István Csabai et al

Enigmatic 'dark energy', thought to make up 68% of the universe, may not exist at all, according to a Hungarian-American team. The researchers believe that standard models of the universe fail to take account of its changing structure, but that once this is done the need for dark energy disappears. The team publish their results in a paper in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Our universe was formed in the Big Bang, 13.8 billion years ago, and has been expanding ever since. The key piece of evidence for this expansion is Hubble's law, based on observations of galaxies, which states that on average, the speed with which a galaxy moves away from us is proportional to its distance.

Astronomers measure this velocity of recession by looking at lines in the spectrum of a galaxy, which shift more towards red the faster the galaxy is moving away. From the 1920s, mapping the velocities of galaxies led scientists to conclude that the whole universe is expanding, and that it began life as a vanishingly small point.

In the second half of the twentieth century, astronomers found evidence for unseen 'dark matter' by observing that something extra was needed to explain the motion of stars within galaxies. Dark matter is now thought to make up 27% of the content of universe (in contrast 'ordinary' matter amounts to only 5%).

Observations of the explosions of white dwarf stars in binary systems, so-called Type Ia supernovae, in the 1990s then led scientists to the conclusion that a third component, dark energy, made up 68% of the cosmos, and is responsible for driving an acceleration in the expansion of the universe.

In the new work, the researchers, led by Phd student Gábor Rácz of Eötvös Loránd University in Hungary, question the existence of dark energy and suggest an alternative explanation. They argue that conventional models of cosmology (the study of the origin and evolution of the universe), rely on approximations that ignore its structure, and where matter is assumed to have a uniform density.

A short animation that shows the expansion of the universe in the standard 'Lambda Cold Dark Matter' cosmology, which includes dark energy (top left panel red), the new Avera model, that considers the structure of the universe and eliminates the need for dark energy (top middle panel, blue), and the Einstein-de Sitter cosmology, the original model without dark energy (top right, green). The panel at the bottom shows the increase of the 'scale factor' (an indication of the size) as a function of time. The growth of structure can also be seen in the top panels. One dot roughly represents an entire galaxy cluster. Units of scale are in Megaparsecs (Mpc), where 1 Mpc is around 3 million million million km. Credit: István Csabai et al"Einstein's equations of general relativity that describe the expansion of the universe are so complex mathematically, that for a hundred years no solutions accounting for the effect of cosmic structures have been found. We know from very precise supernova observations that the universe is accelerating, but at the same time we rely on coarse approximations to Einstein's equations which may introduce serious side-effects, such as the need for dark energy, in the models designed to fit the observational data." explains Dr László Dobos, co-author of the paper, also at Eötvös Loránd University.

In practice, normal and dark matter appear to fill the universe with a foam-like structure, where galaxies are located on the thin walls between bubbles, and are grouped into superclusters. The insides of the bubbles are in contrast almost empty of both kinds of matter.

Using a computer simulation to model the effect of gravity on the distribution of millions of particles of dark matter, the scientists reconstructed the evolution of the universe, including the early clumping of matter, and the formation of large scale structure.

Unlike conventional simulations with a smoothly expanding universe, taking the structure into account led to a model where different regions of the cosmos expand at different rate. The average expansion rate though is consistent with present observations, which suggest an overall acceleration.

Dr Dobos adds: "The theory of general relativity is fundamental in understanding the way the universe evolves. We do not question its validity; we question the validity of the approximate solutions. Our findings rely on a mathematical conjecture which permits the differential expansion of space, consistent with general relativity, and they show how the formation of complex structures of matter affects the expansion. These issues were previously swept under the rug but taking them into account can explain the acceleration without the need for dark energy."

If this finding is upheld, it could have a significant impact on models of the universe and the direction of research in physics. For the past 20 years, astronomers and theoretical physicists have speculated on the nature of dark energy, but it remains an unsolved mystery. With the new model, Csabai and his collaborators expect at the very least to start a lively debate.

Related Stories

A Yale-led team has produced one of the highest-resolution maps of dark matter ever created, offering a detailed case for the existence of cold dark matter—sluggish particles that comprise the bulk of matter in the universe.

It's a beautiful theory: the standard model of cosmology describes the universe using just six parameters. But it is also strange. The model predicts that dark matter and dark energy – two mysterious entities that have ...

Russian scientists have discovered that the proportion of unstable particles in the composition of dark matter in the days immediately following the Big Bang was no more than 2 percent to 5 percent. Their study has been published ...

Astronomers at the University of British Columbia have collaborated with international researchers to calculate the precise mass of the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies, dispelling the notion that the two galaxies have similar ...

Dwarf galaxies are enigmas wrapped in riddles. Although they are the smallest galaxies, they represent some of the biggest mysteries about our universe. While many dwarf galaxies surround our own Milky Way, there seem to ...

Recommended for you

Researchers from the University of Washington and Microsoft have demonstrated the first fully automated system to store and retrieve data in manufactured DNA—a key step in moving the technology out of the research lab and ...

One of the ocean's little known carnivores has been allocated a new place in the evolutionary tree of life after scientists discovered its unmistakable resemblance with other sea-floor dwelling creatures.

In research that casts cells as curators of their own history, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute scientists have discovered that adult tissues retain a memory, inscribed on their DNA, of the embryonic cells from which they arose. ...

New photonic tools for medical imaging can be used to understand the nonlinear behavior of laser light in human blood for theranostic applications. When light enters biological fluids it is quickly scattered, however, some ...

dark energy =time?In a void almost no gravity: in presence of gravity time compresses-slows, is the opposite true?Since it is (space-time) the an incremental increase in time would make a difference in expansion rate. Add in the stress on the web created by massive gravity sources it seems there are plenty of sources of energy to account for it... not that I am an expert.

The claim of the universe accelerating is an example of dullard "science" devotees not realizing when they're being lied to. Perlmutter's technique was to look at a distant galaxy, obtain its spectrum, derive its speed of recession by the Doppler shift, calculate the distance by Hubble's Constant, then examine light from a Type !a supernova in it. He claims the light is dimmer than it should be, meaning the galaxy is moving faster than it should be. Faster than its Doppler shift? The Doppler shift already showed how fast the galaxy was moving! How could it be moving faster? And, consider, if the universe is accelerating even now, the Hubble value would not be constant! Type Ia supernova close in would also, every single one of them, be further away than they should be. But they're not!

Take the balloon analogy of the expansion of space. As the balloon inflates, the distances between the points along its surface move apart - the surface area of the balloon increases.

Now consider a different analogy that takes into account gravity which distorts space. Imagine the balloon has constant volume - it doesn't expand or shrink per se - but each bit of mass on its surface pokes a little divot - the deeper the heavier the object.

Now what happens? If all mass is spread evenly, the balloon is spherical and has minimum surface area. When the matter clumps up in places, the surface becomes dimpled like a golf ball , but since we specified that the volume of the balloon is conserved, the surface area between the masses must increase - so it appears space is expanding.

Take the balloon analogy of the expansion of space. As the balloon inflates, the distances between the points along its surface move apart - the surface area of the balloon increases.

Now consider a different analogy that takes into account gravity which distorts space. Imagine the balloon has constant volume - it doesn't expand or shrink per se - but each bit of mass on its surface pokes a little divot - the deeper the heavier the object.

Now what happens? If all mass is spread evenly, the balloon is spherical and has minimum surface area. When the matter clumps up in places, the surface becomes dimpled like a golf ball , but since we specified that the volume of the balloon is conserved, the surface area between the masses must increase - so it appears space is expanding.

Interesting thought, but in that scenario the clumps of matter aren't moving away from each other, they are forcing the air in a balloon to move somewhere.

He claims the light is dimmer than it should be, meaning the galaxy is moving faster than it should be. Faster than its Doppler shift? The Doppler shift already showed how fast the galaxy was moving! How could it be moving faster?

It seems you're combining and confusing some information there.

Brightness is not used for measuring the speed of galaxies. The brightness is not affected by their speed.

Certain types of supernovae happen in certain conditions which causes them to have more or less equal brightness - and so these stars are used for estimating relative distance, knowing that the intensity of radiation from a more distant object diminishes proportionally.

Interesting thought, but in that scenario the clumps of matter aren't moving away from each other, they are forcing the air in a balloon to move somewhere.

Indeed, but as the surface of the balloon represents our 3D space, it would seem from everyone's point of view that they're getting further and further away - while in reality they're getting closer and closer to each other along an extra dimension represented here by the normal of the sphere surface.

You can simplify it even further into a 2D case with a circle. Suppose the radius is 1 so the area is pi and circumference is pi, if you pinch the circle into two smaller circles by conserving the area, the total circumference grows from pi to 4.443~ and so if your imaginary 1D creature is forced to move along the perimeter, they would conclude that space has grown bigger.

Suppose matter falling into singularities is actually falling to the center - and how? Well, objects in free fall accelerate.

Indeed, but as the surface of the balloon represents our 3D space, it would seem from everyone's point of view that they're getting further and further away - while in reality they're getting closer and closer to each other along an extra dimension represented here by the normal of the sphere surface.

You can simplify it even further into a 2D case with a circle. Suppose the radius is 1 so the area is pi and circumference is pi, if you pinch the circle into two smaller circles by conserving the area, the total circumference grows from pi to 4.443~ and so if your imaginary 1D creature is forced to move along the perimeter, they would conclude that space has grown bigger.

Suppose matter falling into singularities is actually falling to the center - and how? Well, objects in free fall accelerate.

I see what you're getting at. The dark matter requirement to support observations might grow considerably in this scenerio.....?

Sorry, circumference is 2 pi, and it would grow from ~ 6.3 -> 8.9 or about 41% increase in "space"

The dark matter requirement to support observations might grow considerably in this scenerio.....?

I don't know. I suspect it can be tuned by adjusting how much stuff there is to the conserved volume of space, and again how it is distributed.

The dynamics of such a bubble is that all matter will eventually clump up together - some of the bulges grow faster than others and all matter "slips" to one side of the balloon, which presumably then causes a new big bang and throws all matter all over the surface of the balloon again.

Please be aware that relativity theory has already been disproved both logically and experimentally. Our physical time measured with physical clocks is not the same time defined by Lorentz Transformation. Our physical time measured as the status of a periodical physical process is absolute i.e. invariant of inertial reference frames no matter whether you use classical mechanics or relativistic mechanics (if you don't mix up the clock time with the relativistic time). Therefore, relativistic time is just a variable defined by a mathematical function without physical meanings, nothing to do with our physical time. It is a mistake to mix up the physical time with relativistic time, which produces many so-called relativistic effects. Actually all predictions of special relativity and other relativistic spacetime based theories are irrelevant to the physical world. See "Challenge to the special theory of relativity" March 1, 2016 Physics Essays for more details.

the problem with the idea is that our universe is, as far as anyone can tell - flat. I.e. it doesn't curve on itself to enclose a volume.

......below:

The Structure of Space According to the General Theory of Relativity;

Part 3 Considerations on the Universe as a Whole- Albert Einstein

If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it.

Of course, the problem with the idea is that our universe is, as far as anyone can tell - flat. I.e. it doesn't curve on itself to enclose a volume.

Imagine;Pressure combined with ongoing forces of an 2d outburst (big bang) which carries a pull (gravity) with it, considering the volume of the balloon (the one without a shroud) could increase absorbing the +-= environment;The surface, especially in 2d increases exponential and therefore the absorption rate and the pull keeps increasing too.

@EikkaOf course, the problem with the idea is that our universe is, as far as anyone can tell - flat. I.e. it doesn't curve on itself to enclose a volume.

As far as we can see it is presumably flat. The universe could be many times larger than our ability to collect the light coming from past the light horizon because of the limit on the speed of light. There could be this circle or ball you speak of it is just so large that we can't see the curvature.

If you read the post I made 3 posts above this one, it states just about what you concluded, that: "this circle or ball you speak of it is just so large that we can't see the curvature", all we really see is a short arc length of the perimeter.

The universe could be many times larger than our ability to collect the light coming from past the light horizon because of the limit on the speed of light.

It is already assumed to be so. The upper limit for the possible curvature of the universe given present knowledge is something on the order of 1 part in 10^62 so if it makes a loop around itself, it is very much bigger than anything we observe or will ever be able to observe until all the stars have burned out.

There are of course alternatives, such as the brane idea which posits that there are multiple flat universes very close to each other.

Also notice that the universe being flat has other consequences. If the universe curves in on itself, everything is actually a little bit closer and the force of gravity between things is stronger - so the universe would have collapsed back in on itself very soon after the big bang before galaxies and stars were formed.

The alternative where the universe does not curve on itself but instead forms a kind of saddle shape, things get further away from each other faster over distance and the force of gravity falls off faster, and everything flies apart so not even atoms can form.

So the universe as we know it is only possible over a very narrow range of parameters for flatness, and that range gets narrower as more time goes by.

If the accelerating expansion of space was due to the geometry of space, it would be rather more sensible to assume that the universe was ever so slightly saddle shaped rather than spherical.

It follows from the present estimate that omega is within 1% of exactly 1 which would mean the universe is flat. If you extrapolate that back to the beginning of time, it means that omega had to be within 1:10^62 of 1 or else we would not see the density of matter we do in the present universe.

It would all have either clumped up together, or flown apart. See my point about the bubble universe: imagine trying to pinch a soap bubble - it slips out from between your fingers. In the same way, matter would slip to one side of the bubble the faster the smaller the bubble is.

it means that omega had to be within 1:10^62 of 1 or else we would not see the density of matter we do in the present universe.

OK, I see what you're referring to now, i didn't realize DENSITY was what you were referring to. I was trying to perceive some manner of curvature over observable distance, something along the idea of measuring Rise over Run as you look out to the horizon.

Excuse my ignorance, but if the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, then at some point it will reach the speed of light. What happens then?

Relative to what?

If the space between two points is expanding faster than light, then light from one point never reaches the other, so they basically become two separate universes - what happens in one cannot have any effect in the other.

At some distant time in the future, we'll hit a point where looking further out into the universe, you'll see just blankness.

Excuse my ignorance, but if the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, then at some point it will reach the speed of light. What happens then?

It can never reach speed of light because MATTER is governed by the law of kinetic energy, KE=1/2mv² whereby v in the equation is the velocity of the mass being accelerated & can never be equal to light speed.

Excuse my ignorance, but if the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, then at some point it will reach the speed of light. What happens then?

It can never reach speed of light because MATTER is governed by the law of kinetic energy, KE=1/2mv² whereby v in the equation is the velocity of the mass being accelerated & can never be equal to light speed.

Yeah but...How bout space, itself? IMO, matter is just slowed down energy causing it to "lump" as it gets slower and slower. And space is faster than light energy...It's the Einstein equivalence thing...(and - good call with that quote of his)And I am inclined to think Eikka's 10 to the neg 62 is probably about right...Eikka, we're not on a surface exactly, we're more in a layer inside the balloon filling it... (think 3d)The Great Attractor is a relative "local" represention of a "center" .Everything is in rotation, not expansion.

Eikka, we're not on a surface exactly, we're more in a layer inside the balloon filling it... (think 3d)

Actually, EVERYTHING inside is just one big layer.Notice how the big bang is everywhere we look?We are doing the observing, so we're looking from the INSIDE to our furthest limit, 13.4bn years (so far).JWT is SO gonna expand that...:-)

IMO, matter is just slowed down energy causing it to "lump" as it gets slower and slower

Nope, ENERGY has a single velocity, lightspeed, it can never propagate below that speed for any reason, this is vastly different than a particle of matter governed by the law for Kinetic Energy= 1/2mv².

By contrast calculating energy for Electromagnetic waves, Photon Energy=mc², in which c is a constant unlike v in the kinetic energy equation which can be variable.

An interesting point because it could explain why some galaxies are moving in a direction toward us as well as away from us.

Looking at the orbital patterns of planets within the solar system, one may be able to discern a similar pattern from Earth depending on if we are looking at a planet that is reaching it's closest approach to Earth or when it is receding & approaching blue-shift turns suddenly to receding red-shift.

With respect to Eikka's challenging of what I said about relating dimness with speed, and the two who felt Eikka's challenge was valid, note, first of all, Phys Org only allows so many characters, so explanations have to be short. Perlmutter claimed the Type Ia supernovae were dimmer than should be the case in galaxies at the distance indicated by relating recession speed to the Hubble value. He claimed that that means the distant galaxies must be moving away faster than would be expected. If they were moving slower, they wouldn't be that far away. So Perlmutter was relating dimness with recession velocity.

IMO, matter is just slowed down energy causing it to "lump" as it gets slower and slower

ENERGY has a single velocity, lightspeed, it can never propagate below that speed for any reason. ...

In a vacuum, yes. But when encountering mass, the abortion and re-emission of a photon is subject to the half spin lag time of EACH of those atoms, giving light the APPEARANCE of traveling at less than c, even thought it is still travelling at c - BETWEEN - photon exchange events.(I use a "spherical spin" metaphor to aid in my visualization.)

By contrast calculating energy for Electromagnetic waves, Photon Energy=mc², in which c is a constant unlike v in the kinetic energy equation which can be variable.

Isn't c2 the actual constant used...?This would seem to imply Einstein felt c is variable (by powers, at the very least...)

In a vacuum, yes. But when encountering mass, the abortion and re-emission of a photon is subject to the half spin lag time of EACH of those atoms, giving light the APPEARANCE of traveling at less than c, even thought it is still travelling at c - BETWEEN - photon exchange events.

.......yeah, it sorta sounds like you have right. The distance between any atom is a vacuum, then when it encounters an atom it can go through absorption by the atom raising the energy of the electron shell to a higher level.

When the electron shell gives up energy when electrons settle back to a lower orbital position, the emitted photon may or may not be of the same frequency of the photon that was absorbed, no matter this takes time because the kinetic energy involved in electron movement occurs at a velocity that is less than lightspeed, this because electron movement cannot occur at the speed of light, therefore you see time lapse.

.......yeah, it sorta sounds like you have right. The distance between any atom is a vacuum, then when it encounters an atom it can go through absorption by the atom raising the energy of the electron shell to a higher level. When the electron shell gives up energy when electrons settle back to a lower orbital position, the emitted photon may or may not be of the same frequency of the photon that was absorbed, no matter this takes time because the kinetic energy involved in electron movement occurs at a velocity that is less than lightspeed, this because electron movement cannot occur at the speed of light, therefore you see time lapse.

Exactly. You see why I like to use "spin"? It's very useful in it's geometric "calculability". If used right, it could handle a "many-body" solution.And - thanks...:-)

The assumption made by authors that universe expansion may be variable, different in different locations and time from big bang as a self-consistent result of locally formed structures, is clearly not inconsistent with general relativity but may as well violate principle of special relativity like total inertial frame equivalence and constancy of speed of light, since if universe expands in different speeds means some speeds were different than speed of light as we know it, or speed of light was changing as universe expanded.

There is widely ignored alternative to dark matter/energy based explanation of apparent expansion of universe, based on asserting a preferred frame of reference and variable speed of light, feature compatible with inhomogeneous expansion model:

Implications of an Absolute SimultaneityTheory for Cosmology and UniverseAccelerationEdward T. Kipreos*University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, United States of AmericaPublished at PLOS;

You see why I like to use "spin"? It's very useful in it's geometric "calculability". If used right, it could handle a "many-body" solution.

......no, I don't get this.

At first I thought you might have been referring to where the position of the orbit an electron could be found in before & after absorption of a photon, but I was unable to make that connection from the context of what you wrote.

if universe expands in different speeds means some speeds were different than speed of light as we know it, or speed of light was changing as universe expanded.

No, the speed of light was not changing. What was changing is the change in distance over which that photon had to travel to reach a moving goalpost. It's no different than the length of time required to travel at a constant of 50 miles at 50 mph which would require one hour's time or traveling at twice the distance of 100 miles at 50 mph which would require twice the amount of time.

You see why I like to use "spin"? It's very useful in it's geometric "calculability". If used right, it could handle a "many-body" solution.

......no, I don't get this. At first I thought you might have been referring to where the position of the orbit an electron could be found in before & after absorption of a photon, but I was unable to make that connection from the context of what you wrote.

I did mean that. However, the absorption point doesn't matter. Just it's angular relativity to the emission point. (Which I add up as "spin")Remember. Just an artist kicking a can down the street, here, so my explanations may not be as clear as they could be if i was trained in "the Arcane Art of Nuclear Physics"...:-)But the pic is in my head...:-) and I'm workin' on it...:-)

Fascinating, so in previous models it turns out that observed Λ is actually an artifact of averaging the matter density across filaments and voids. It's good that they were able to find some differences between their model and the concordance model; this will let astronomers check both models to see which one agrees better with observations, and that makes this a full-fledged hypothesis. I'll be watching this with a great deal of interest.

A good question is, how does this affect the time evolution of the universe in the future? I read the arXiv copy of the paper, and found that their *overall* prediction is that expansion will continue to accelerate as voids increasingly dominate, but it is not clear to me that the filaments will eventually tear apart due to this, and they don't comment on it. [contd]

[contd]I think we need to wait for more exact surveys to confirm or deny their model, as they say in the paper, but I did find the concurrence of their model with observed Type Ia supernova data locally being better (see figure 3 in the paper) than the current ΛCDM prediction pretty interesting. This tends to indicate that their approach using the conjecture that defining "local universes" as a basis for construction of cosmological models has merit.

Finally, it should be noted that while this appears from a naive understanding to "overturn" ΛCDM (by removing Λ from strong consideration), in fact it does not; what it does show is that simulations of lower detail can contain artifacts introduced by the lack of detail. The predictions of ΛCDM and these guys' AvERA are so close together that even the best current observations can only begin to show detectable differences in their predictions. Nor does this "deny" dark matter.

creativeone asked, "Excuse my ignorance, but if the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, then at some point it will reach the speed of light. What happens then?"

Ignorance + questions does not require an excuse. Only ignorance + certainty does.

Benni barfed up his ignorance + certain answer: "(the mass being accelerated) can never be equal to light speed."

Swing and a miss, on three counts.

One, the question concerns an expanding *universe.* Nothing in GR rules out *spacetime* expanding faster than light, and indeed, a prominent theory in cosmology *requires* that spacetime expanded faster than light in the early universe (inflation).

Two, accelerating an object doesn't change its mass in relation to itself. It only changes it relative to an observer moving differently.

There will also be time dilation between the observer and the accelerated object. That's an important point to keep in mind.

Three, accelerating expansion of the universe *will* put some parts of it into an unobservable state relative to any observer in any particular location. In fact, if the universe is accelerating as it appears to be, physicists are confident in making the prediction that with the passage of enough time, nothing but the local group of galaxies will be observable at all. The light from more distant objects will never reach us. You can think of this phenomenon as a kind of event horizon, beyond which we cannot observe anything at all. As time passes, more of the universe's matter is escaping beyond that horizon relative to any particular observer.

This cuts to the heart of creativeone's question. He wants to understand what an accelerating universe will do.

OK, so quote the section of General Relativity that proves this point. Maybe you can point to a Partial Differential Equation Einstein left behind leaving his thesis open to this concept of "spacetime"?

I Copied & Pasted a small section above that came right out of Einstein's GR as evidence for what Einstein concluded is the Structure of the Universe. There is nothing in that section by which anyone could ever in the remotest fashion conclude that anything moves FTL relative to anything else anywhere in the Universe. Maybe you can Copy & Paste a section here showing us something different?

I mean, Copy & Paste is not hard, maybe it's finding the section in GR supporting your claim that is hard? If you can't quote the text from GR supporting the FTL claim you make, then the whole concept is just a lot of hot air because you don't know what else to say & you would have been better off not saying it.

The standard model explanation for dark energy is the cosmological constant, a constant of integration in Einstein's field equations that was there from the beginning. It's not epicycles, it's a single number. Einstein used it to try and make the universe static and then it was forgotten about for a while, there is absolutely nothing in GR to say it should be zero, it's not ad hoc.

He claimed that that means the distant galaxies must be moving away faster than would be expected

OK, so quote the section of General Relativity that proves this point. [...snip mindless obsession about differential equations...]

1) No, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why GR prohibits faster-than-light expansion of spacetime. After all, there's nothing in GR about how you like to molest sheep, but I'd be hard pressed to back that up from the literature.

2) Why are you so obsessed with Einstein's original paper? Most of what's known about GR is not in there.

......how do you know that if Einstein never included "most of what's known about GR is not in there"?

Parse error. And I'm not just being nitpicky; I really can't figure out what the hell you're trying to say. Maybe this will help explain it though: https://en.wikipe...f_giants

Stop trolling

No, you're the troll. I know this. You know this. Everyone knows this. There's no point in pretending otherwise.

& actually study GR & find out what's in there rather than assuming most of it is [like Dark Matter in the Universe, where what you believe about GR is 80-95% missing from the text.

There's nothing in GR about neutrinos, yet they're quite real. Nor is GR (the original papers or the much larger body of subsequent work) the final word on anything. Why do you keep venerating it as if it were some sort of holy text?

Parse error. And I'm not just being nitpicky; I really can't figure out what the hell you're trying to say.

.......well of course you can't figure out what I'm "trying to say", you've never studied the text of General Relativity, so how would you know?

Nor is GR (the original papers or the much larger body of subsequent work) the final word on anything.

........very true, nothing in it about how to make chocolate cake, or make pizza, but when I want to know how to calculate gravitational lensing I don't look up instructions for how to bake a chocolate cake or make pizza.

Parse error. And I'm not just being nitpicky; I really can't figure out what the hell you're trying to say.

.......well of course you can't figure out what I'm "trying to say", you've never studied the text of General Relativity, so how would you know?

No, I can't figure out what you're trying to say because you've failed to put your thoughts (such as they are) into words coherently. Stop acting like a five year old. If someone asks for clarification, you clarify; you don't call them stupid.

---

Keep in mind, all of this started when you denied that spacetime can expand faster than light. You have yet to back this up with even one shred of evidence. Instead you keep changing the subject. This is the tactic of the creationist.

The conclusion that the universe is expanding was based on Hubble's discovery that the light from distant galaxies was shifted to the red in proportion to distance. Though counter-intuitive, the light from distant galaxies in a universe contracting around a cosmic singularity like a massive black hole would also be shifted to the red in proportion to distance just as Hubble observed. Moreover, the contracting model uses the gravitational pull of the cosmic singularity to explain the exaggerated red shifts attributed to Dark Energy, Dark Matter and other phenomena. For a concise explanation, see bigcrunchuniverse dot com.

No, I can't figure out what you're trying to say because you've failed to put your thoughts (such as they are) into words coherently. Stop acting like a five year old. If someone asks for clarification, you clarify; you don't call them stupid

Try a better come-back.

Maybe you can come up with a more cogent ad hoc extension for GR in one of your chocolate cake recipes & claim it's valid for use in General Relativity simply because "most of what's known about GR is not in there".

Get your salivating tongue off the road & stop imagining how much you know about things that are only inferred to exist.

Benni never backs up anything he says because there is no evidence to support his claims

...And, consider, if the universe is accelerating even now, the Hubble value would not be constant!

Exponential expansion is accelerating expansion where the exponent (in our case the Hubble constant) really is constant. So it mystifies me why people should get so excited about the accelerating expansion.

As far as we can see it is presumably flat. The universe could be many times larger than our ability to collect the light coming from past the light horizon because of the limit on the speed of light. There could be this circle or ball you speak of it is just so large that we can't see the curvature.

Toying with the idea that the U we observe is info collected from a flat 2-d hologram would be supported by this flat U idea. This would also make the idea of parallel holograms forming one universe seem plausible. Like one for matter and the other for antimatter. Connected mechanically in such a way that as space falls into black holes with matter in one U it pops up in the parallel U in the form of a white hole. This could actually be causing what we think is expanding spacetime which is actually. So the space within galaxies is sucked up in black holes and redistributed as space between galaxies, leading us to think spacetime is expanding. Sort of like a cruel joke.

contlet's make that: what we think is expanding spacetime is actually space within galaxies being sucked up in black holes and redistributed as space between galaxies driven by white holes, leading us to think spacetime is expanding. Cruel indeed.

- "Inflation" hypothesis 'blown' by Prof Paul Steinhardt, saying it NEVER had tenable objective/observational evidence/support! So please stop assuming anything based on now-discarded hypothesis of Inflation (and by extension, "Expansion").

- When GR theorists say "space-time is expanding", they are invoking ABSTRACT geometrical/maths MAPPING CONCEPT; and NOT "space" itself! So careful to NOT CONFLATE real 'energy-space' with abstract 'space-time' in discussions.

- COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT was first entertained/invoked due to a MISTAKEN BELIEF that the Universe had OTHER THAN Infinite/flat overall extent/geometry. At one stage it was thought the Universe consisted of MW galaxy and Local Group! So careful to NOT use OLD/MISTAKEN 'views' and ABSTRACT 'unreal' so-called 'dimensions/spacetime' (NOTE: 'spacetime' CAN vary as a COMPOSITE VARIABLE in ABSTRACT maths/geometry graphs/models).

Inflation predicted the scalar spectral index was less than 1, as was confirmed by Planck at 4 sigma. I wouldn't call that nothing. Inflation is certainly not the same thing as expansion in general, that's a cheap attempt at guilt by association.

COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT was first entertained/invoked

As a constant of integration in the Einstein field equations. Einstein used it to make the universe static and then after that it was forgotten about for a while up until Peebles. Setting it to zero in GR is an assumption.

Inflation predicted the scalar spectral index was less than 1, as was confirmed by Planck at 4 sigma. I wouldn't call that nothing.

Mate! You really have to start NOT just going along with CIRCUITOUS arguments/hypotheses/logics! Your Inflation-dependent "scalar spectral index" hypotheses/claims PRESUPPOSE that "inflation" occurred! Just read this:

Inflation is certainly not the same thing as expansion in general, that's a cheap attempt at guilt by association.

They're CONNECTED. All to do with REAL 'energy-space' concepts/consequences versus ABSTRACT 'space-time' concept/misunderstandings. Don't conflate the two and you will soon lose all those UNREAL CIRCUITOUS ASSUMPTIONS and claims which you just read off the 'official version' based on the BELIEF that INFLATION 'actually happened'!

COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT was first entertained/invoked

As a constant of integration in the Einstein field equations. Einstein used it to make the universe static and then after that it was forgotten about for a while up until Peebles. Setting it to zero in GR is an assumption.

Why try to do that 'maths kludge'? Because abstractions/beliefs misled into thinking it NEEDED his "my greatest blunder". It only 'needed' it because they thought universe was finite/not 'flat'. Not 'needed' now. :)

I'm not a scientist (with or without the scare quotes); I'm a mathematician.

who have made up their own self-serving 'expedient version' of a 'scientific method'; to wit, "The SlartiBartFast Method":

No! [I won't look at the evidence/logic because it may teach me something; and I prefer to remain ignorant rather than listen to someone I want to hate/troll because my ego tells me to!]

Wake up, mate. Just try looking, listening and learning for a change, irrespective of the person/source; you may get to like becoming less ignorant, more humble and less of a troll, hey! :)

You post nothing but meaningless drivel. Is it possible that your meaningless drivel might contain something of value from time to time? Sure. Am I going to sift through all the meaningless drivel in order to check? No.

If the space between two points is expanding faster than light, then light from one point never reaches the other, so they basically become two separate universes - what happens in one cannot have any effect in the other.

That might be an overstatement. Entanglement is not changed because cause and effect travel instantaneously.

So, a mathematician; too 'snobby' to actually read countering evidence/logics; because he doesn't 'like' a person/source. With that attitude/bias you will never be a scientist. Sad.

Except you never present any countering evidence. And I don't consider what you have to say -- not because I don't like you (and I don't; you're rude, condescending, and dishonest), but because you've never presented anything intelligent or insightful.

There's only so much nonsense one can hear from a person before one tunes that person out. There's nothing wrong with that.

You are woefully miss-informed about me; even so far as to not know I have long been pointing out the inadequacies of conventional maths constructs/axioms when it comes to completing the consistent universal physical theory. It is because of all those undefined, 'dimensionless' point and something-from-nothing UNREAL and/or PURELY PHILOSOPHICAL NOTIONS that infest conventional maths. I have long been working on a REALITY-based maths construct/axioms set which is based on real universal phenomena/context, so it will be able to complete a consistent universal physics theory. So your ignorance/malice towards me regarding BOTH my physics AND maths work/observations/suggestions/cautions for YEARS now on this/other forum, is YOUR problem, not mine, mate. :)

Perhaps, had you NOT been so one-eyed, egotistical, non-objective, snobby mathematician, and instead been a true scientist, you might have been better informed. :)

Excuse my ignorance, but if the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, then at some point it will reach the speed of light. What happens then?

It can never reach speed of light because MATTER is governed by the law of kinetic energy, KE=1/2mv² whereby v in the equation is the velocity of the mass being accelerated & can never be equal to light speed.

Velocity is measured relative to the expanding spacetime (velocity is called a local variable). So you can be sitting there minding your own business and suddenly the lights go out.

You are woefully miss-informed [sic] about me; even so far as to not know I have long been pointing out the inadequacies of conventional maths constructs/axioms when it comes to [...snip word salad...]

Nothing you've posted gives any indication that you know anything about modern mathematics. Indeed, it tends to lead one to think you know nothing about it.

It's worse than that Cher. This is Really-Skippy's interweb page where he explains his version of the universe,,,,, [url]http://earthlingclub.com/[/url]

Except you never present any countering evidence.

It's because he is writing a book about his toes and everything and he doesn't want anybody to steal his ideas. But you can get the preview here,,,,, [url]http://earthlingclub.com/[/url]

I'm not joking either, Really-Skippy really did write that stuff and for years was proud of it.

There's only so much nonsense one can hear from a person before one tunes that person out.

That's where I come in. As a service to the humans and scientists I fix things so if you keep your karma bar slider set to 2.0 or 2.5 they don't have to be bothered with Really-Skippy's foolishment. Non, I don't get paid, I volunteer my time for the sake of humans and scientists for free.

You are woefully miss-informed [sic] about me; even so far as to not know I have long been pointing out the inadequacies of conventional maths constructs/axioms when it comes to [...snip word salad...]

Nothing you've posted gives any indication that you know anything about modern mathematics. Indeed, it tends to lead one to think you know nothing about it.

BUT...BUT...How would you lnpw, mate! You just admitted to NOT reading what I post! Multiply that by the YEARS long posts on both maths (and physical cosmology/astrophysics and quantum/plasmoic etc etc physics), and you've MISSECD A LOT, mate. :)

Add to that missed info, the fact recent mainstream cosmo/astro and quantum/plasmonics discoveries/reviews are increasingly confirming ME correct all along, and you have a LOT to catch up on! Your INTENTIONAL IGNORANCE and MALICE of/towards me/my cogent correct contributions to objective sciemaths/physics discourse has made you irrelevant now. Sad.

PS @ Slarti: The fact that the resident bot-voting ignoramus troll has come to your 'defense' with even more ignorance and malice, demonstrates your ill informed posts are 'relevant' only to trolls and bot-voting ignoramuses; who can't stand it when their preferred-Skippies 'buddies' are exposed for their lack of objectivity and knowledge...because they employ their now-infamous method of "I won't look at evidence/ideas from those who I don't like!" in order to 'justify to themselves' why they are intentionally choosing to remain ignorant, malicious and irrelevant losers/trolls on the net. Sad choice, mate. Yep; you're no scientist alright;as you have admitted already. Apparently never will be. What a waste of intellect. Sad.

Anyway galaxies are in rotation. I don't think expansion. Expansion is between galaxies. Possibly everything in galaxies is being eaten up by the black holes and spit out as white holes between galaxies.

@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am doing fine and dandy, thanks for asking.

I don't have a lot of time to fool around with you tonight so you can go back to playing scientist without me distracting you more.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy. (That's coonass for: Don't forget to lock-up the Earthman Playhouse when you get done playing for evening and leave the silly looking pointy cap and labcoat for the next couyon who wants to play scientist and humans.)

As you can objectively observe for yourself, the trolls and intentional ignoramuses are trying to 'bury' the points made to IMP-9 under their usual heap of 'troll-shite' which they bring and dump on the floor to distract from science/logic discourse on the topic. In this instance the two trolls were: an ill informed 'mathematician' boasting he does NOT read countering evidence/points from posters he doesn't like; and an ever sadder irrelevance, ie a bot-voting ignoramus who still doesn't realize he doesn't understand in any real depth/subtlety the complex maths/physics issues being discussed. I wonder if IMP-9 is happy or sad that our exchange has been 'buried' as usual by those who would prefer him and well as themselves to remain in ignorance and circuitous /unreal 'world' of their own? How about it, IMP-9? I respinded to your reply. Have you now understood where you were going wrong 'just believing' questionable 'orthodoxy' claims and assumptions etc? :)

An interesting point because it could explain why some galaxies are moving in a direction toward us as well as away from us.

Note that galaxies do attract each other gravitationally as evidenced by the filaments between galaxies. Overcoming the forces of expansion, perhaps meaning no white holes or few wormholes between the approaching galaxies.

I'm just gonna thank IMP-9 Urgelt and SlartiBartfast for their knowledge, WG, Eikka, S2 and aa for their input, and Benni and RC for the entertainment.(Just spent 10 minutes looking for some initials...)

The idea that unmodelled clumpiness could help explain expansion appeals to me, like most, I await higher res data :)

I'm just gonna thank IMP-9 Urgelt and SlartiBartfast for their knowledge, WG, Eikka, S2 and aa for their input, and Benni and RC for the entertainment.(Just spent 10 minutes looking for some initials...)

The idea that unmodelled clumpiness could help explain expansion appeals to me, like most, I await higher res data :)

Take care to re-examine your list and your categories correlations. It may be you are falling into the trap which all skimming/uninformed people fall into so often....because they did not do proper due diligence of actually looking at all the evidence/context before kneejerking to simplistic/biased opinions which are irrelevant and misleading.

The fact you have not even considered/commented on the points I made to IMP-9 (and which he has yet to properly counter objectively and not circuitously based on incorrect orthodoxy assumptions/interpretations etc) before making your listing/correlations, is a worry, 'newbie'. Do better. :)

@Whydening Gyre, just peeking in. What does the impact point tell you, artistically, about that can your kicking?

That it's direction and velocity is entirely dependent on the force I kick it with + the angle from which the toe of my boot hits it + WHERE the toe of that boot hits it's surface. (We're not even gonna talk about the car window it cracked on one of those kicks...;-))

Any way that might be analogous what we refer to as t = 0? bye for now.

Analogous, yes. But only ever so. There will always be that pesky 1 (to whatever power up or down) ...:-)Making "t=0" just another "singularity" type math artifact that can never quite be reached...:-) Remember, space is never "0". Put enough of it together and Bam!" - you got something...:-)

If the space between two points is expanding faster than light, then light from one point never reaches the other, so they basically become two separate universes - what happens in one cannot have any effect in the other.

That might be an overstatement. {Entanglement is not changed because cause and effect travel instantaneously.}

Only in a perfect vacuum. The only thing separating them is Distance. Making Time a function of of distance and velocity.We're not traveling as fast as light...:-)

... in the case of a black hole, space is being "squeezed out" as the density of matter increases.

Right. Squeezed out of the black hole into some white hole through wormholes. Note the white holes would be contributing to the expansion of space between galaxies. So space is getting the squeeze into galaxies while pushing the galaxies apart. Sort of mind-boggling.

{Entanglement is not changed because cause and effect travel instantaneously.} Only in a perfect vacuum. The only thing separating them is Distance. Making Time a function of of distance and velocity.We're not traveling as fast as light...:-)

You're talking about local variables. Cause and effect occurs on a global scale - meaning the U considered as a single particle.

So space is getting the squeeze into galaxies while pushing the galaxies apart. Sort of mind-boggling.

Not quite actually. Space is getting the squeeze in galaxies while pushing the galaxies apart outside of galaxies. This has been observed as separate from normal expansion around invisible white holes where the wormholes are pushing space into the white holes.

My categories and correlations are fine thanks. You seem to be using less /'s these days, that's good :)I know you RC. My name may be new, but I'm an old hand here.

So "ZergSurfer" is a sockpuppet? What is/are your other name(s) here, since you say you're "an old hand"?

Anyhow, if you are "an old hand here", and you've been reading my posts over years, then you may have noticed recent mainstream astro/cosmo and QM/Plasmonics physics new discoveries/reviews increasingly confirming me correct all along on the science/logics on many fronts/issues, yes? In which case, your exclusion of me from the "Knowledge" category/listing whom you "thanked for their knowledge", was an oversight ?....although I have on occasion provided some 'entertainment' in those instances when I was responding to and exposing trolls, stalkers and bot-voting ignoramus/malicious 'gangs'! Perhaps you should include a COMPOSITE category just for me: "knowledgeably entertaining". :)

No, mate; that wasn't the point. The point was: your claims re scalar spectral index somehow 'supporting' Inflation was circular....as your interpretation is based on assumption Inflation is 'real' (which it isn't, as Prof Paul Steinhardt explained). Hence any observations/claims based on Inflation 'interpretation' is/are circular; and not objectively tenable scientifically (reminds of the Bicep2 claims/interpretations which were based on In-built assumptions which had no basis in objectively tenable scientific fact).

Not 'needed' now.

Setting it to zero is an assumption.... You cannot just delete it from the field equations.

No. Since Inflation (and by extension also Expansion) is NOT 'real', then it's up to YOU et al to justify its inclusion at all; let alone, 'value'.

Space is getting the squeeze in galaxies while pushing the galaxies apart outside of galaxies. This has been observed as separate from normal expansion around invisible white holes where the wormholes are pushing space into the white holes.

Clarification: This has been observed as separate from normal expansion caused by what I think is the exponential growth of spacetime.

This has been observed as appearing to blow galaxy clusters apart which I'm saying is due to a white hole only visible by the effect it has on surrounding galaxies. Sort of like dark matter.

OBTW if I haven't mentioned it here exponential expansion is accelerated expansion as you can find by expanding the exponential function by its Taylor series. So why people get excited about accelerated expansion seems strange to me.

CONSIDER:- "Inflation" hypothesis 'blown' by Prof Paul Steinhardt, saying it NEVER had tenable objective/observational evidence/support! So please stop assuming anything based on now-discarded hypothesis of Inflation (and by extension, "Expansion").- When GR theorists say "space-time is expanding", they are invoking ABSTRACT geometrical/maths MAPPING CONCEPT; and NOT "space" itself! So careful to NOT CONFLATE real 'energy-space' with abstract 'space-time' in discussions.- COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT was first entertained/invoked due to a MISTAKEN BELIEF that the Universe had OTHER THAN Infinite/flat overall extent/geometry. At one stage it was thought the Universe consisted of MW galaxy and Local Group! So careful to NOT use OLD/MISTAKEN 'views' and ABSTRACT 'unreal' so-called 'dimensions/spacetime' (NOTE: 'spacetime' CAN vary as a COMPOSITE VARIABLE in ABSTRACT maths/geometry graphs/models).

@Whydening Gyre, just peeking in. What does the impact point tell you, artistically, about that can your kicking?

That it's direction and velocity is entirely dependent on the force I kick it with + the angle from which the toe of my boot hits it + WHERE the toe of that boot hits it's surface. (We're not even gonna talk about the car window it cracked on one of those kicks...;-))

Any way that might be analogous what we refer to as t = 0? bye for now.

Analogous, yes. But only ever so. There will always be that pesky 1 (to whatever power up or down) ...:-)Making "t=0" just another "singularity" type math artifact that can never quite be reached...:-) Remember, space is never "0". Put enough of it together and Bam!" - you got something...:-)

Like it! Do you think our 'universe' might 'crack a window', analogously that is?

An interesting point because it could explain why some galaxies are moving in a direction toward us as well as away from us.

Note that galaxies do attract each other gravitationally as evidenced by the filaments between galaxies. Overcoming the forces of expansion, perhaps meaning no white holes or few wormholes between the approaching galaxies.

The "filaments" are the tell tale evidence of how everything is connected to everything else in the Universe via gravity & electro-magnetic radiation. The shapes of these structures are classic patterns of the random nature of ENTROPY, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, exactly what Einstein wrote about in Part 3 of General Relativity. concerning the structure of space & the universe.

Science theories usually are wrong until someone figures out the truth. Just look at the theory of global warming: total fantasy.

I always try to remember that the same companies that were hired to dismiss and ridicule and eventually stall understanding that cigarettes/tobacco cause cancer..are the exact same companies that the energy companies hired to convince the public to dismiss global warming.

They muddied the waters in the whole tobacco-cancer scenario..for many decades.

No joke, spend a few minutes looking it up.

It is literally the same publicity companies and their nefarious ways of interference that are involved in attempting to muddy and slow down the clarity of global warming research and the connected results.

So when I see this sort of crap injected in a given conversation, I logically wonder if it is a bot, a paid shill, or a severely misinformed wishful thinker that's been converted by said mechanism.

The "filaments" are the tell tale evidence of how everything is connected to everything else in the Universe via gravity & electro-magnetic radiation.

Exactly... Note the "&" part of that equation. One other part we're missing to complete the picture. What other thing do we need to compare it to...?

The shapes of these structures are classic patterns of the random nature of ENTROPY, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, exactly what Einstein wrote about in Part 3 of General Relativity. concerning the structure of space & the universe.

Right. Squeezed out of the black hole into some white hole through wormholes. Note the white holes would be contributing to the expansion of space between galaxies. So space is getting the squeeze into galaxies while pushing the galaxies apart. Sort of mind-boggling.

Good, but not quite...Space (and electron charge,BTW) are being squeezed to the surface of the surface of the mass as it increases density...

{Entanglement is not changed because cause and effect travel instantaneously.} Only in a perfect vacuum. The only thing separating them is Distance. Making Time a function of of distance and velocity.We're not traveling as fast as light...:-)

You're talking about local variables. Cause and effect occurs on a global scale - meaning the U considered as a single particle.

Anyway galaxies are in rotation. I don't think expansion. Expansion is between galaxies. Possibly everything in galaxies is being eaten up by the black holes and spit out as white holes between galaxies.

And (groups of) galaxies are also in rotation. Albeit, in a much bigger loop...:-)Space is just - there, shifting itself around to make room for moving mass ...

@Whydening Gyre, just peeking in. What does the impact point tell you, artistically, about that can your kicking?

That it's direction and velocity is entirely dependent on the force I kick it with + the angle from which the toe of my boot hits it + WHERE the toe of that boot hits it's surface. (We're not even gonna talk about the car window it cracked on one of those kicks...;-))

Any way that might be analogous what we refer to as t = 0? bye for now.

Analogous, yes. But only ever so. There will always be that pesky 1 (to whatever power up or down) ...:-)Making "t=0" just another "singularity" type math artifact that can never quite be reached...:-) Remember, space is never "0". Put enough of it together and Bam!" - you got something...:-)

Like it! Do you think our 'universe' might 'crack a window', analogously that is?

There's a whole lot of them cracked - to differing degrees.Analogously speaking, of course...:-)

The "filaments" are the tell tale evidence of how everything is connected to everything else in the Universe via gravity & electro-magnetic radiation.

Exactly... Note the "&" part of that equation. One other part we're missing to complete the picture. What other thing do we need to compare it to...?

Both have lightspeed velocity which is the reason I mentioned both of them in the same sentence with one immediately following the other.

The shapes of these structures are classic patterns of the random nature of ENTROPY, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, exactly what Einstein wrote about in Part 3 of General Relativity. concerning the structure of space & the universe

With one exception - it ain't random

Yes, it is "random", the proven model of the nature of ENTROPY........ The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics describes the motion of particles upon expansion from a point source as random. This is what Einstein was describing in Part 3 of General Relativity.

WG..........when ENTROPY is referred to as being "random", this does not mean a "haphazard" pathway in which mass moves, but rather to the UNCERTAINTY as to exactly where it will be located at a specified point in time due to forces of friction, gravity, etc, that a specific particulate may encounter within its pathway.

From preprint abstract: "According to the separate universe conjecture, spherically symmetric sub-regions in an isotropic universe behave like mini-universes with their own cosmological parameters" This is an excellent approximation in both Newtonian and general relativistic theories. Except that it isn't "concordant model", but steady-state Universe model in disguise - i.e. exactly the opposite of the concordance model.. :-) The term 'concordance' is used in cosmology to indicate the currently accepted and most commonly used cosmological model.

A very astute observation, mate. Yes, it increasingly appears that all the recent mainstream astro/cosmo/quantum discoveries/reviews are inexorably leading back to Ocam's Razor Universal Physical Processes, ie: "Eternal", "Infinite" and "Energy-Space Recycling" type of "Steady-State-like" phenomena set. Kudos to you for pointing out this now-unavoidable conclusion for the Forum at large, Dingbone. Thanks. :)

Some people never learn/get honest. If it wasn't for such people posting misleading assertions/insinuations, I wouldn't have to post in my defense. But there, the lying bot-voting venedetta-merchant troll persists!

Eg, this mendacious drivel from Stump:

IOW, non-predictable, non-testable and completely based in personal belief

which is the exact same TOE that is used by every religion on the planet,

What the Stump conveniently 'left out' was that not only is my TOE based on Reality-phenomena/hypothesis from the outset, I am finalizing a Reality-based maths/axioms to replace the UN-reality-based conventional maths/axioms.

And this:

only the idiots RC and liar-kam would get pissed off about people who are demonstrably more intellectual than they are trying to help them

The Stump has left out where it has been ME who has "helped them" [Stump's 'buddies'] when they GOT IT WRONG on MANY occasions (Bicep2 etc).

Some people never learn/get honest. If it wasn't for such people posting misleading assertions/insinuations, I wouldn't have to post in my defense. But there, the lying bot-voting venedetta-merchant troll persists!

What the Stump conveniently 'left out' was that not only is my TOE based on Reality-phenomena/hypothesis from the outset, I am finalizing a Reality-based maths/axioms to replace the UN-reality-based conventional maths/axioms.

And this:

only the idiots RC and liar-kam would get pissed off about people who are demonstrably more intellectual than they are trying to help them

The Stump has left out where it has been ME who has "helped them" [Stump's 'buddies'] when they GOT IT WRONG on MANY occasions (Bicep2 etc).

Should the bot-voting trolls, stalkers, liars and personality-vendetta merchants be left to run riot over others' right to self-defense against their atrocious betrayal of all decent science and humanity principles and ethics....on a SCIENCE discourse site no less?

Perhaps you would be better employed asking your above question of the perpetrator(s) instead of their victims(s), hey, Whyde? Good luck with that; you may become their next 'target' for bullying and lying about! It will take courage and fortitude of character and objectivity to do that, mate. Try it and see what happens. To satisfy your 'scientific curiosity' re 'consequences of bravery'; or even 'just for the hell of it!', hey? Cheers. :)

The Stump has left out where it has been ME who has "helped them" [Stump's 'buddies'] when they GOT IT WRONG on MANY occasions (Bicep2 etc).

The Stump is LYING TO YOU again, folks!

then it should be easy for you to demonstrate this with links and references to the 4 fatal flaws you claim to have seen in the BICEP2 papers

that is all it will take

to date, you've made 6,328 posts on PO alone about this topic and you have never once been able to justify or support your claim of the 4 fatal flaws, let alone the additional 4 flaws on top of that you claim to have seen

until you can post that link then you are a chronic trolling liar seeking attention

Perhaps you would be better employed asking your above question of the perpetrator(s) instead of their victims(s), hey, Whyde?

Persecutory delusion.

you may have noticed recent mainstream astro/cosmo and QM/Plasmonics physics new discoveries/reviews increasingly confirming me correct

Grandiose delusion.@RealityCheckIf you are not medicating with prescription/non-prescription drugs, your manner of communicating is indicative of a serious psychiatric disorder. If you are not, I recommend for you to see a mental health professional in your region.

Please take no offense, I have people in my life that are dealing with mental health issues, I say this out of genuine concern. You seem to be a somewhat intelligent individual, which is actually an impedance when diagnosing certain disorders. Disorganized thoughts which are prevalent in certain conditions are not so evident in higher IQ individuals, same with other negative symptoms.

...Photon Energy=mc², in which c is a constant unlike v in the kinetic energy equation which can be variable.

Mass of a photon? I've heard of frequency before but not mass.

It appears you, like Schneibo, comprehend very little about Special Relativity, that PHOTONS are the ENERGY in E=mc².

Oh, just dawned on me why you misconstrue PHOTONS (Electro-magnetic Waves) with MASS, thus leading to your inability to comprehend the appropriate application of E=mc² vs. KE=1/2mv².......it's because you view PHOTONS as PARTICLES as opposed to PACKETS of ENERGY always subject to E=mc² & NEVER KE=1/2mv².

Explain how Einstein's equation: E² = (pc)² + (mc²)² applies to both photons and massive particles and how KE=mv²/2 can be derived from it.

Only a Journalist would ask a question like this. You don't even know what's wrong with the statement you made.

All you need to do is read everything I have posted in this thread & you'd have the answer, but I guess high school physics is just so tough for Journalists that name calling binges are much easier for you & Schneibo. So, no, I'm not rewriting everything I posted above.

@Lenni, the thing about claiming to be able to do math is that when someone presents some you have to actually do it or everyone laughs at you.

For grins, since we know that a photon has energy but does not have mass, @RNP's equation (direct from SRT, by the way) reduces to:

E² = (pc)² + (mc²)²E² = (pc)² + (0 x c²)²E² = (pc)² + 0E² = (pc)²E = pcwhich indicates that photons have momentum. This is the simplest possible algebra. Your attempt to weasel your way out of it is transparent to a child in school. I conclude you can't do math.

Very well done, @RNP, it's not possible to search out the derivation of KE from relativity using the Google. So @Lenni can't cheat, he's got to actually know the math and physics to do it, and you've very nicely demonstrated he doesn't.

WG..........when ENTROPY is referred to as being "random", this does not mean a "haphazard" pathway in which mass moves, but rather to the UNCERTAINTY as to exactly where it will be located at a specified point in time due to forces of friction, gravity, etc, that a specific particulate may encounter within its pathway.

For grins, since we know that a photon has energy but does not have mass reduces to:

Yeah, but...Since (E)nergy= (M)ass x (C)onstant^2,Wouldn't it mean that E divided by C^2 = some measure of mass? Even if only the very tiniest bit?Guess I'll have to figure out that darn derivation, I guess...:-((I hate numbers..)

you may have noticed recent mainstream astro/cosmo and QM/Plasmonics physics new discoveries/reviews increasingly confirming me correct

I can't recall anything about that. Could you fill me in?

Sure. Since my many decades-long observations pointing out the circuitous naivete/fallacies on which many of the longstanding mainstream hypotheses/theories/models/interpretations etc were based. In recent years, due to improving telescopes and more objective reviews etc by mainstream, the astro/cosmo and quantum/plasmonic discoveries/reviews have confirmed me correct all along.

Eg:

(1) The 'Cosmic Ladder' methodologies for distance estimates has been flawed, due to the local/intervening dust/gas/plasma constituents/processes which 'mixmaster' the em radiations eventually detected/seen 'here'; also the TypeIa Supernova parameter assumptions were demonstrated wrong, due to (there) local variations in mass/distribution/dynamics etc etc.

(2) Big Bang itself passed by mainstream peer review into the literature, and for DECADES been treated/cited/used as 'fact' for further hypotheses/claims etc which depended on Inflation/Expansion etc, and so passed mainstream peer review into literature; thus building into subsequent mainstream claims/exercises FALSE hypotheses. How do we know it was false all along? I pointed out many logical/physical inconsistencies/fantasies in it; but ignored by those pushing the BB/Inflation/Expansion/Singularities/Wormholes etc etc UNREAL and unscientific fantasies)....UNTIL Professor Paul Steinhardt (who was one of the earliest proponents of Inflation etc) blew the lid off the mainstream fantasists' box of false claims; he finally admitted/showed how Inflation had NEVER HAD ANH TENABLE scientific/logical evidence supporting it (and neither, by extension, Expansion/Accelerated Expansion). So much for publish-or-perish HACKS exploiting BB 'industry'.

(3) I long pointed out the TWO-SLIT (and modifications like slit-and-groove etc etc) experimental results/phenomena were due to PLASMONIC 'sea' which surrounds all surfaces of bulk/atomic material; and that the incident photons/electrons or whatever hitting the BARRIER surfaces produces WAVWS in that plasmonic 'sea', which waves propagate to the edges/surfaces where they concentrate the energies, which eventually go through the slits (re-radiating' whatever quantum of energy is commensurate withy the system being employed...and that is what hits the SCREEN of the detector(s). Recent PO articles describing mainstream experimenters employing/confirming this PLASMONIC 'surfaces/edges' demonstrates that I was right all along on that too!

(4) The Planck experiment showed I was right to caution re Bicep2 exercise/claims; poor Stumpy, antialias et al disn't listen; insulted/attacked me instead. They STILL cannot accept/forgive that I was right all along! :)

Anyhow, Seeker2, these are just some of the insights got from my Reality-based theorizing process. There are many more I cannot divulge at this time because it would be too time-consuming and laborious to explain it all here. Better to divulge it complete and consistent in my ToE publication when I finalize the Reality-based maths/axioms set for modeling my Reality-based TOE. Because of publication constraints I have had to drastically reduce my posting in detail my insights/explanations. I have given reminders, clues and cautions which the INTELLIGENT READERS will no doubt put to good use for their own ponderings/works. Those unintelligent types who lie, bot-vote, attack, insult and sabotage interesting polite science/logics discussions will no doubt either ignore or attack without clue-one of what it's all about! You and the Forum at large will have noted them when insulted/disrespected and 'troll cluttered/buried' by those unintelligent/malignant types, hey?

poor Stumpy, antialias et al disn't listen; insulted/attacked me instead. They STILL cannot accept/forgive that I was right all along

wrong again mr chronic liar

the facts:i asked you to produce the 4 fatal flaws from your specific comment about BICEP2

to date you have made more than 6,332 posts and you still have not been able to point to the "4 fatal" and "4 other" flaws you claimed to have seen in said BICEP papers

that means instead of simply linking someone elses already open access papers and pointing to a specific point as "a fatal flaw" you have chosen to lie, misrepresent the situation and completely randomly redirect to absolutely off-topic pseudoscience bullsh*t

as you still refuse to simply link those posts where you show at least the 4 fatal flaws - reported for pseudoscience, lying, trolling and being f*cking stupid enough to think you could lie on the internet and it would disappear

I see your point re inflation and the BB but I should think the Steinhardt cyclic model requires expansion. OBTW exponential expansion is accelerated expansion as you can show by expanding the Taylor series for the exponential function. Why that seemed to be such a surprise mystifies me.

Been there. Done that. Too many times already. You just missed it all due to your Stump Detective Agency "method", and I quote:

TL ; DR (ie, "Too Long ; Didn't Read")

Moreover you are still wiping egg off your face for falling hook line and sinker for that Bicep2 crap.

And moreover still, I already told you many times I am no longer at liberty to go into further details on that or anything else until I publish the consistent reality-based ToE and reality-based maths to model the complete universal physics.

So, Stumps, be a good little bot-voting troll and stop poisoning/cluttering interesting and polite science/logics discussions/threads with your nasty and irrelevant noise please. Listen politely and Learn objectively; instead of being such a nasty poisonous person on the net. Be better. :)

I see your point re inflation and the BB but I should think the Steinhardt cyclic model requires expansion. OBTW exponential expansion is accelerated expansion as you can show by expanding the Taylor series for the exponential function.....

All 'explanations' and 'models' requiring Inflation/Expansion/Accelerated Expansion (and/or any one or more of the rest of the unreal items I listed earlier) are ipso facto NOT 'real' scientific hypotheses/theories, but merely 'abstract' speculations/fantasies which all fall down, and that includes any 'cyclic' model relying on those UNreal things. Re your exponential Taylor Series observation: I remind you that conventional maths is infested with UNreal things like the 'zero/nothing', singularity and 'dimensionless' point etc, which is why the conventioinal maths inadequate (it 'blows up' if applied to real universal phenomena). Hence ONLY reality-based maths/axioms construct can consistentlmodel the reality. :)

Re your exponential Taylor Series observation: I remind you that conventional maths is infested with UNreal things like the 'zero/nothing', singularity and 'dimensionless' point etc, which is why the conventioinal maths inadequate (it 'blows up' if applied to real universal phenomena). Hence ONLY reality-based maths/axioms construct can consistentlmodel the reality. :)

Reality-based? Does that include addition, multiplication, and division by non-zero integers? If so try that on the Taylor series for a few values and see what you get. If not reality-based bring me up-to-date on your reality-based maths. Maybe it's like alternative facts. Only now it's alternative reality. Thanks. OBTW do you do your own taxes, or just throw out the standard forms for a more reality-based form?

"Insipid idiot" now? Oh well, at least you are toning down your personal insults-----but beware, Ghost may sue you for plagiarizing his work!

Anyhow, The first few dozen times was enough; no more time to waste on your 'personal problems', mate; you'll have to work through them yourself now (but it won't do you much good unless you stop that hate-based bot-voting 'partnership' with that other bot-voting buddy of yours because you are 'bad influence on each other, and it only reinforces the 'problem' you both have. Good luck, mate! :)

PS: BTW, have you learned the lessons from that Bicep2 fiasco yet? Are you now more objective and polite to dissenting views based on correct science/logics like mine?-----oh, and have you finally objectively noted how recent mainstream discoveries/reviews have been confirming me correct all along on many fronts? Cheers. :)

Conventional maths is ok AS an ABSTRACTIONS maths. But frank mathematical physical theorists themselves will admit the axiomatic/unreal nature of the 'construct' is proving problematic/inadequate when applied to reality modeling of universal nature/processes/entities of "energy-space" in the Quantum Regime (sure the maths works ok for 'calculations', but the 'explanatory' power is limited to abstractions/calculation without actual explanation (much like SR is). Which is why the Renormalization, Limits etc 'techniques have had to be imposed onto the basic maths construct, so that it can give at least some sensible results. But a reality-based maths/axioms set/construct would be complete and consistent from the start and throughout, not requiring such overlain techniques. Besides, you yourself have reverse-recognized that the singularity 'division by zero' etc is inadequate to represent what is actually 'there' in the quantum scales. OK? :)

Cher quit disrespecting the humans and scientists. Until you get a science education and a real science laboratory to work in, all you can be is a pretend scientist with a pretend school to teach in. l thought that is what your Earthman Playhouse was for?

So knock it off. You are not a reality based scientist and you don't have a reality based theory. You got a reality challenged mental condition.

Seek help, do diligence better, for the humans and the scientists. Alrighty Matey? ("o")

Mate, mate! How many times did I do just that, only for you to respond, and I quote:

TL : DR (ie, "Too Long, Didn't Read")

Followed usually by your juvenile 'parting salutation', and I quote:

FOAD (ie, F*ck Off And Die")

Too late now. It's your own fault if you missed it all, not mine. I haven't time to go back through all that again. You should have been less 'deaf' and more objective. I note that you have improved a little in your tone lately. Keep it up! Anyhow, good luck for the future, mate. Sincerely-----or as some may characterize it: "insipid"?

Cheers anyway. I look forward to reading more constructive, polite, original ideas and/or known-science/logics contributions to the discourse here from you, mate! :)

I again remind you all that I am not at liberty to discuss further in much detail until I publish my reality-based work consistent and complete. I only have time for reminders, clues and cautions...as I said before. Good luck in your own endeavors, everyone. :)

Mate, mate! How many times did I do just that, only for you to respond, and I quote:

TL : DR (ie, "Too Long, Didn't Read")

Followed usually by your juvenile 'parting salutation', and I quote:

FOAD (ie, F*ck Off And Die")

Too late now. It's your own fault if you missed it all, not mine. I haven't time to go back through all that again. You should have been less 'deaf' and more objectively receptive/polite. I note that you have improved a little in your tone lately. Keep it up! Anyhow, good luck for the future, mate. Sincerely-----or as some may characterize it: "insipid"?

Cheers anyway. I look forward to reading more constructive, polite, original ideas and/or known-science/logics contributions to the discourse here from you, mate! :)

But a trolling, lying bot-voting ignoramus, such as you have self-demonstrated/admitted to being, is neither of those things, mate. The rest of your bot-noises is as stale as it is lame. Get a new 'Schtick', Ira...this one is worn out from self-abuse. Good luck. :)

It was just as stupid as the first time you posted him.

You seeing double now, bot? And since a demonstrably stupid bot-voting ignoramus like you is neither scientist, you don't have the wherewithal to judge others on that score, mate. Do better, Ira. :)

Non Cher, he is not worn out non, he is stout hickory and has a lot of good skewering left in him. And if you don't want another whack with the Cajun Stick you better start being a little more respectful.

If your "Cajun Schtick" is as 'inflexible' as the "bot-voting program" with which you have replaced your 'brain' (I apply the term 'brain' very loosely in your case, since a bot-voting ignoramus is neither scientist nor human), then no wonder your performance has become just so much "dead wood" for some time now. Time to "re-boot and re-program" your increasingly obsolete and useless bot-troll 'box', mate!

Yep, Ira, "Laissez les bons temps rouler!" indeed. I am being confirmed correct all along on many fronts by mainstream discovery/reviews; while you and your bot-voting trolling 'buddies' are being left behind in both the science and the humanity. So no "bons temps" for you, mate. Never mind, you have your dead wood "Schtick" to 'amuse' yourselves with. Careful though, or you may go 'blind'-er than you have been for too long already. Take it easy, Ira, hear? :)

Perhaps you would be better employed asking your above question of the perpetrator(s) instead of their victims(s), hey, Whyde?

Persecutory delusion.

That's a bit unfair, isn't it, mate? Especially as your opinion flies in the face of the record across many years now?

And as for your attributing "persecutory delusion" to victim(s), are you aware that was precisely the "defense" when sexual child abuse perpetrators/enablers were finally accused? And in that case too (as our Recent Royal Commission finally found), the victims weren't the 'deluded' ones...it was the perpetrators/enablers that were deluded they were 'innocent' while accusing their victim(s) of lying.

Grandiose delusion.

Again, it's a bit unfair, isn't it, mate? I have been increasingly confirmed correct all along by mainstream discovery/reviews of late (it's all in PO articles). So it may be you under the sad delusion your opinion is 'informed' even though it is patently not so. :)

Oh bloody hell, now I have trawl through years of your posts just to find where you were " confirmed correct all along by mainstream discovery/reviews of late (it's all in PO articles)."Oh wait, no I don't. Because you were not, and it is not.

Oh bloody hell, now I have trawl through years of your posts just to find where you were " confirmed correct all along by mainstream discovery/reviews of late (it's all in PO articles)."Oh wait, no I don't. Because you were not, and it is not.

So, you, an admitted sockpuppet of "an old hand here" refuses to look before making opinions/accusations etc? Where have I seen that version of "Scientific Investigative Method" before? Oh yes, it was introduced into PO by the Stump. Look up his 'method" of "TL ; DR" and "FOAD" salutations to boot! Yeah, a real objective/genuine search for the truth there, ZergSurfer! No wonder you missed it all; just like the Stump (poor sod still can't find it all, and links to google as if that will do the 'due diligence' FOR him!). You, Stumpy and SlartiBartFast are either one and the same, or you swallowed whole Stumpy's 'method' of IGNORING/AVOIDING 'finding' the truth. What a gaggle of internet-bot losers! Sad, really.

it's the reason you were banhammered yet again from sciforums (and other sites)

You wish! My Internet Experiments exposed the reason I was banned there; it was due to troll-mods COLLUSION and ABSUSE of power. Only you will never 'see' the proof because you "can't find it" with your biased/fraudulent "Investigative Method" which involves "TL ; DR" and "FOAD" as primary 'principles/ethics'. Poor Stump, that's the same 'method" Trump and his "advisers' use to deny the facts and instead replace them with their 'alternative facts' issuing form their own "TL ; DR" and "FOAD" investigative 'method/principles/ethics. Do you STILL 'evade' the truth that the 'paddoboy' troll who was instrumental in my banning is now 'gone' because even the mods/admin realize how damaging/sabotaging/lying etc he was? There was an earlier troll who colluded with the mods to ban me, called "Trout"; he went the same way as paddoboy did now. They damaged the site. I won't return there. :)

RC,Thanks for clogging up what stands to be a really good article with your "I told you so - really" crap.Why don't you let people get on with discussing what is REALLY going on....?

You haven't noticed that it's posts from others, like your above, that have necessitated my posting as much as I have in self-defense against such.

You will also note that my first post was on-science and on-topic insofar as reminding everyone the up-to-date situation as opposed to all the old stuff which everyone was arguing over while missing the recent developments which make those arguments moot now.

So, Whyde, instead of joining those who post clutter and noise which requires me to respond to THEM, how about telling THOSE trolls/attackers to cease and desist in their attempts to 'bury' anything posted on the science/topic? Or do you still not know what courage and integrity feels like? Do you still crave the '5's from bot-voting perpetrators; or are you just scared?

You haven't noticed that it's posts from others, like your above, that have necessitated my posting as much as I have in self-defense against such.

You will also note that my first post was on-science and on-topic insofar as reminding everyone the up-to-date situation as opposed to all the old stuff which everyone was arguing over while missing the recent developments which make those arguments moot now.

So, Whyde, instead of joining those who post clutter and noise which requires me to respond to THEM, how about telling THOSE trolls/attackers to cease and desist in their attempts to 'bury' anything posted on the science/topic? Or do you still not know what courage and integrity feels like? Do you still crave the '5's from bot-voting perpetrators; or are you just scared?

What 'case, mate? So far the only 'case' has been you joining in with those who posted to/about me in order to bury the science posts made. Did you bother to count the posts from the perpetrators? My reply posts number pproximately proportionately. As you would logically expect, and would obviously have noticed, if you weren't so busy attacking the victim because of your own bias/fear; preferring to excuse/enable the perpetrators and joining in the 'clutter and noise' THEY (and now you) have been guilty of in this thread. Yes, indeed:

I rest my case, your honor

Be better/braver, Whyde; the '5's from your bot-voting buddies are not worth the slow but inexorable decay of your honor/integrity, mate. Please then cease and desist making excuses/enabling them; and so adding to the clutter and noise. Keep to the science and all will be ok, IF you can summon up the guts to ask your bot-voting '5' buddies to cease/desist too.

Yeah, but... You don't make science posts. Just - "Oh, oh, oh - you may not be right!" posts...Do better - shut up until you can provide the math to verify your points.

What? Didn't you get the point(s) made at all by my reminders/cautions? They make clear that those UNFOUNDED hypotheses in question are being revised/falsified by mainstream ITSELF via new/recent discovery/reviews (Prof Paul Spteinhardt's was but one admission re one item: Inflation being unsupported by any scientific evidence for DECADES)!

Re other UNFOUNDED mainstream hypotheses based on equally UNREAL claims/interpretations, 'abstract maths' speculations/models etc: AGAIN, they TOO are being inexorable falsified by mainstream discoveries/reviews of late; so I have no NEED to "provide the maths" for that, since mainstream itself is falsifying the whole BASIS for them in the first place, be it mistaken assumotions and/or unreal maths fantasies on which many of the modeling was done! :)

Please ask your '5' bot-vote buddies to cease and desist their clutter and noise now that we are speaking about the science not their 'problems' arising from their long-time addiction to their own "TL : DR" method of 'investigating'.

And if they stop the clutter and noise posts I won't need to self-defense post in return, will I? See how that works? Good luck, Whyde. :)

Besides, you yourself have reverse-recognized that the singularity 'division by zero' etc is inadequate to represent what is actually 'there' in the quantum scales. OK? :)

reverse what? let me guess. denied. let's get to the meat of it. I have no idea what you're going on about here, matey. One thing I can say is zero doesn't fit well in quantum mechanics because it's an absolute concept which violates the uncertainty principle. Singularities certainly do occur in GR. I believe there are something like 2 or 3 exact solutions to the EFEs, separated by these singularities. But not in the quantum realm that I know of.

Question. Have you ever done a physics experiment? Or taken part in doing one? Or written a report on one? Actually, ever even been in a physics lab? Cheers.

As for the astrophysical/astronomical/cosmological observations/data, I, like most theorists, and because I am strictly independent objective researcher/theorist, have had to utilize the results/reports etc of the various publicly/privately funded/constructed telescope/detector observational data and analyses. And for my Reality-based maths, I have used my initial uni-level maths understandings to seek out the chinks in the conventional maths construct/axioms, and then proceeded to cogitate and explore possible alternative maths/axioms set for modeling the reality-based ToE (which conventional maths is patently failing to do at present...as the state of the 'partial' conventional theory demonstrates).

Anyhow, I trust that jn answering your questions and responding as above, I have not fallen foul of the 'bot-voting' gang who will accuse me of something or other in order to bury it, as usual? Let's see. Cheers, mate. :)

RC,Thanks for clogging up what stands to be a really good article with your "I told you so - really" crap.Why don't you let people get on with discussing what is REALLY going on....?

@Whydening Gyre Sorry, we're all losing here...Why?'...That's how I came by plasmonic insights recently confirmed correct by recent mainstream two-slit etc experiments.'This guy has 'insights'...he's a prophet. As a mere layman I'm going back to my dwelling and meditate for another 40 days....zzzzzzzz

@RC is a troll. It lives to destroy threads like this one. By replying to it, you encourage it. The best policy is for everyone to ignore it. Second best is to respond as most of us are, making it clear to it that no one actually believes anything it says. Worst is to encourage it, ever, by agreeing with it.

@DSWell let's say @RC is computer-assisted. That is you feed your text into a program which looks up all synonyms for big words. Or you may maintain a database of your favorite synonyms. It then gets out its slashes and appends those synonyms to the original big words. Then you submit your post. Possibly other automated obfuscation techniques also. Just haven't figured those ones out yet. Possibly hijacked from automated spell checking software.

this has been demonstrated quite a few times in various threads on PO or on SciForums

if you're interested in research, open an account at SciForums and read all posts by "realitycheck" and "undefined" or ask MIT if they would be willing to release data collected during their psychological studies (which won't happen due to HIPA and other similar PPA laws)

RC,Thanks for clogging up what stands to be a really good article with your "I told you so - really" crap.Why don't you let people get on with discussing what is REALLY going on....?

@Whydening Gyre Sorry, we're all losing here...Why?'...That's how I came by plasmonic insights recently confirmed correct by recent mainstream two-slit etc experiments.'This guy has 'insights'...he's a prophet. As a mere layman I'm going back to my dwelling and meditate for another 40 days....zzzzzzzz

The King of "/"."/" also means divide.The Universe only adds...(really, really fast)And what about the 3 slit experiments?

Please ask your '5' bot-vote buddies to cease and desist their clutter and noise now that we are speaking about the science not their 'problems' arising from their long-time addiction to their own "TL : DR" method of 'investigating'.

And if they stop the clutter and noise posts I won't need to self-defense post in return, will I? See how that works? Good luck, Whyde. :)

The "clutter & noise" is 99% unidirectional - from you. And induces other, more patient, action to dispel its level of shrill. See how that works?

Not with computer software, however. Computer genius with hidden agenda to discredit science for his own purposes (or whoever his client is) - dangerous, especially when mixed with occasional flashes of technological competence.

contI had a dog at one time who loved to capture mice but he wouldn't kill them. He just took them apart piece by piece to watch them suffer, I guess. My uncle had a cat who would always drag its prey up to the front door and leave it there for everyone to see what a great predator he was, apparently.

Well, there you have ii folks, the perfect demonstration of bot-voting trolling mendacious behavior driven by ego/gang mentality. If anyone was seriously asking what has held science and humanity back for so long, then they have their answer right there above. That behavior of denial, ego driven lies, insults and abuse of genuine posters is like something straight out of TRUMP/GOP business/politics 'playbook'. And these people wonder why they are giving science and humanity a bad rep? Go figure! The denial, self-delusions and ego-tripping stupidity that lets them behave so must be of 'industrial strength' grade.

Let's summarize:

- Despite my urgings to check it for themselves, they fell hook line and sinker for Bicep2 crap, yet they attack me for their stupidity? Hells bells, that really takes some industrial strength hypocrisy-and-denial syndrome!

- Mainstream discovery/review confirms me correct, while the trolls prefer to be wrong! What's with that?

It's good to see you getting more aware of your problems. Keep up the good work and maybe the humans and scientists will stop ridiculing and making the fun with you. Now that we got if confirmed you have the serious mental condition, the next step is to get you in for some therapy.

- They characterize scientific insight gained from hard, objective research and cogitation of observables and consistent logics as somehow 'unworthy' of a SCIENTIST human intellect following the Scientific Method principles. Now is that a sick ego-driven way to characterize insights scientists through the ages worked to get/hand down to future generations for THEM to build on, or what?!

- Recent mainstream discoveries/reviews keep confirming me correct on cosmic ladder, Supernovae, 'exotic' DM, quantum/plasmonic physics etc etc etc; yet the above 'gang' prefer to deny and ridicule me instead of learning and getting up to date with both mainstream and my insights got from hard work/cogitation in the various fields! Does their behavior remind you of the stupidity/malice of a "TRUMP" like gang of self-serving imbeciles, or what?!

- All the above mockers/trolls, without exception, have not brought any original/correct/consistent work/idea to science.

Hi trolls, ask yourselves what you're burying/sabotaging under your piles of baiting, trolling, bot-voting stupidity. Never mind, you are a gang of twits more interested in ego-tripping and entertainment at other's expense than you ever were in science and humanity discourse. No wonder you have been wrong all along; your 'method' is straight out of the Internet Losers Handbook. The damage done by the likes of you to Sciforum and the old physorg/physforums is irreparable. the "Trout" and "paddoboy" losers in particular did great damage before they were finally told to piss off by the mods/admin who had been perfectly willing to use them for their own nefarious ego-tripping ends....until they could no longer claim "plausible deniability" because the Trout and paddoboy outrages became so self-evident to even their most 'ardent' erstwhile 'followers' and fellow gangmembers.

It seems that the 'gang' here are trying to match their stupidity and damaging sabotage. Sad day. Sad.

It's good to see you getting more aware of your problems. Keep up the good work and maybe the humans and scientists will stop ridiculing and making the fun with you. Now that we got if confirmed you have the serious mental condition, the next step is to get you in for some therapy.

In case your 'case manager' is monitoring your internet access:

- it is an unmistakable sign of a weak mind to employ a bot-voting program to skew the rating metrics on a science site;

- it is an unmistakable sign of a troubled mind to gratuitously insult strangers on the internet;

- it is an unmistakable sign of an imbecilic mind to ridicule that which it doesn't understand;

- it is an unmistakable sign of a bankrupt mind to willfully sabotage science/humanity discourse just for "funs";

- all of the above are unmistakable signs of a dangerously malignant mind requiring better monitoring/medication.

Just in case you/the gang of like-weakminded twits ever have a lucid logical 'moment' to read and understand something properly for a change:

- it is NOT a crime to be RIGHT all along on the science and the humanity;

- it is NOT a bad thing for a scientific, objective human intellect to acquire INSIGHTS into the scientific/humanity issues facing us all;

- it is NOT a good thing to RIDICULE the 'getting of wisdom' via acquiring intellectual/empirical insights by dint of hard work and cogitation on the reality observations which all scientists and humans throughout history have had to ponder objectively for your, and all of humanity's, eventual benefit;

- it is NOT a bad thing to urge you/all to THINK for yourselves and not be distracted by irrelevancies like person/source and your own ego-tripping 'needs' and malicious intents;

- it is NOT a bad thing to CAUTION and/or INFORM those who are not up-to-date or are wrong, be that task ever so thankless.

Not with computer software, however. Computer genius with hidden agenda to discredit science for his own purposes (or whoever his client is) - dangerous, especially when mixed with occasional flashes of technological competence

he is incompetent even with softwarethat is apparent by his history - but that would take too long etc

@CS

@RC is a troll. It lives to destroy threads like this one

Well not exactly. A smart predator does not destroy its prey

1- i didn't say that quote

2- nonsensical- a predator eats their preywhat you meant likely dealt with smart sociopaths maybe - but it's painfully obvious that rc isn't that intelligentand not sociopathic all that much either - he craves attention, true, but that is due to victim-martyr complex

Have you given up on objective, contextual reading, mate? It was Ira keeps attributing "mental conditions". My response merely showed how he is 'projecting' his own "mental conditions". Surely, if that easily discernible obviousness was missed by you, then there is no hope left for you. You obviously have been too long 'buddies' and 'enabler' of/with that 'gang'; who keep derailing threads, bot-voting against even correct science posts. Stop being worse that them, mate; because you should know better! And why keep cluttering the thread and encouraging the trolls/bot-voting gang by yet another rubbish post like that, Whyde? Wasn't it you who was so against that sort of thing? Remember, my first posts were on science/topic and the rest merely in response to the trolls whom YOU are still enabling/encouraging by your own 'noise' post above? If your wife is watching, she should give you a clip round the ear and tell you to stop your own continuing troll 'noise'. :)

Now can you all get back to the science/logics of the thread topic and related matters? Thanks. Good luck in your polite and cogent discourse contributions in future. :)

Jeez, RC. Quit making it all about you...

Come again? Please explain how asking everyone to get back to science/topic is "making it all about me"? It may have escaped your blindly-biased 'one eye' that it is YOU/your troll/bot-voting gang buddies "making it all about me"; instead of sticking to science/topic. Speaking of which, is your subsequent postings your idea of "getting back to science/topic"? Seriously, Whyde, you need to stop sculpting in metal requiring a torch/welder...the fumes are having a detrimental effect on your ethics and judgement, if your latest hypocritical clutter-tripe is any guide. Be more careful. Get some fresh air instead of sitting there enabling/excusing gangs of bot-voting ignoramuses and saboteurs of this site. Snap out of it, man! :)

@RC, the problem is you never talk about the actual science, just about how everyone's being mean to you.

Like @Whyde says, it's all about you. Not about science.

Mate, that is demonstrably untrue, and you know it. My first posts were on the science/logics/topic; and my subsequent posts were against the trolls who attacked me instead of sticking to the science. Why do you 'need' to keep making such blunders in judgement/assertions, mate? Is it because you have been wrong and me correct all along in many instances where you have had to admit you were wrong while making similarly untrue assertions/insults? Have you learned nothing from the hubristic and unscientific fiasco that was Bicep2; which I cautioned all to check out for themselves instead of just believing it all because it was from a 'source/team' you 'approved' of despite them being obviously wrong from go to whoa? What does it take, mate? Rethink it.

@RC, you're so unpleasant that I don't really care how true you claim it is or is not. And if it's not, it's only by the skin of your teeth, one post that actually makes some science claim, generally specious, ill considered, contrary to known observation and experiment, and fifteen posts of whining, self-aggrandizement, and insults. It's not worth my time. And you aren't.

@RC, you're so unpleasant that I don't really care how true you claim it is or is not. And if it's not, it's only by the skin of your teeth, one post that actually makes some science claim, generally specious, ill considered, contrary to known observation and experiment, and fifteen posts of whining, self-aggrandizement, and insults. It's not worth my time. And you aren't.

Let's see: you have been wrong many times and I have been correct all along on many fronts, as recent mainstream discovery/reviews keep confirming. I bring ORIGINAL and CORRECT scientific ideas, observations and insights for your benefit, despite your insufferable nastiness while being wrong all along (have you conveniently 'forgotten' your own longstanding 'unpleasantness'?).

So: you wrong; me correct; on many fronts; and now you (a longstanding 'unpleasant' insulter and unprovoked attacker) declare me 'unpleasant'; because you can't stand me being correct? Great logic. Not. :)

PS @Da Schneib: Please stop "making it about me"; get back to the science/logics of the thread topic; that way I don't have to post in my defense against your trolling unpleasantness and demonstrably erroneous 'version' of what transpired. This sort of personally motivated ego-tripping and lying attacks undermine whatever good you are doing at other times. Learn. Keep it on science not person. That's the scientific method principle you should learn urgently. Good luck....and do get back to the science, mate. Thanks. :)

@RC is a troll. It lives to destroy threads like this one. By replying to it, you encourage it. The best policy is for everyone to ignore it. Second best is to respond as most of us are, making it clear to it that no one actually believes anything it says. Worst is to encourage it, ever, by agreeing with it.

@RC, you're so unpleasant that I don't really care how true you claim it is or is not. And if it's not, it's only by the skin of your teeth, one post that actually makes some science claim, generally specious, ill considered, contrary to known observation and experiment, and fifteen posts of whining, self-aggrandizement, and insults. It's not worth my time. And you aren't.

I couldn't agree with you more but you've slipped up with that last comment by giving something else for RC to continue TRYING to wind you up. Please, don't fall for it.

Couple things:1. Don't bring Trumpisms ("Sad") into a conversation where science is even remotely related. Doing that immediately makes me (hence my 1 votes on those replies) want to dismiss any claims to science you write. Simply put, using a word related to probably the most anti-intellectual, anti-science person in charge of anything ever is not helpful.

2. You keep talking about 4 fatal flaws. I took the time to search your history on phys.org and the earliest comment you talk about it is a March 17, 2014 article about gravitational waves being detected. In it you specifically state that "Since there is nothing in this that merits wasting valuable time that I can better apply elsewhere, I will leave it to you all to see if you can spot the 4 (at least!) fatal flaws for yourselves."

You clearly haven't posted it anywhere. I don't understand your need to obfuscate this. If you have proof it's wrong, post it so it can be confirmed/refuted. That's science.

Just a thought. Wrong conclusions may have been drawn from facts that could have other explanations. For example, what if there was another explanation for the observed red shifting of light we observe from the distant universe? Wouldn't that not only make our distance measurements wrong as well as make the acceleration of the universe just a mirage?

Your turning a blind eye to the gang's behaviour is damning of your own ego-bias/cowardice in the face of a bully gang of trolls who begin the trolling posts stream of attacks and then whine when the victim defends against them. Why do this, when you know the history of internet experiments which exposed/proved their anti-science/anti-humanity trolling/sabotage across many forums? Are you even cognizant that these gangs have been active across the net for years? They got control of some sites and damaged them beyond retrieval. Sciforums and old physog/physforums were ruined by such. The 'Trout" and 'paddoboy' types had carte blanche by the mods/admin until they too couldn't deny their malice and finally put a stop to them after it was proven by objective experiments what was happening. The full story will in due course be in a book about these mod-troll gangs and their disgraces against all good science/humanity ethics. Your cowardice/complicity is noted. Not good.

Did you note where I said I wasn't at liberty to say more due to publishing constraints re complete works? Did you note that I elaborated further re the flaws in side-discussions in subsequent threads/discussions not connected directly with original thread? Did you note that the troll campaign was launched by the troll gang who fell hook line and sinker for the Bicep2 crap despite my cautions to check it all out for themselves? Did you note the way said troll gang preferred to ignore the scientific method objectivity principle so long as it was convenient for them to continue 'bashing cranks' with such obviously flawed 'work' because they 'approved' of the team/source instead of approving of scientific objectivity/caution? And since you brought up '1' votes: did you note that the gang BOT-VOTE irrespective of the correctness in science of their target's posts; and continue to sabotage/bury otherwise interesting/important discussions? Re-do, @canada. :)

Dingbone

Wrong conclusions may have been drawn from facts that could have other explanations.....

Yes, newer crop of mainstream astronomy/astrophysics discoveries utilizing telescopes/instruments/reviews are recently finding out and admitting the many variability factors now making previously 'standard supernava' assumptions and interpretations 'iffy'. Much variability across Supernova types/sub-types due to local/intervening conditions/dynamics and processes make what we 'see from here' open to much error unless we know exactly the set of conditions ap-plying 'there'. The newly realized variability in Intrinsic Brightness and perceived brightness to, means previous 'Cosmic Distance Ladder' construct of old is no longer reliable, even for intermediate distances let alone for extreme distances of Billions of Lightyears. Many PO articles over last few years (and even weeks/days ago) have reported on SN 'variability'. Even wiki now reflects this). Cheers. :)

Exotic DMs are 'old' erroneous assumptions/interpretations-based hypothesis being increasingly falsified by recent astronomical/cosmological mainstream discovery/review. Many PO articles of recent years/weeks report the HUGE quantities being found within, around, between galaxies and in deep space between galaxy clusters----ALL of it NORMAL low-luminosity etc type matter (not 'exotic' type DM) which previously was 'undetectable' by older telescopes/instruments. Added to that, recent mainsttream observations report that the motions of stars and other visible features closely 'track' and 'correlate to' NORMAL MATTER distributions/features; so IF 'exotic' DM supposed to be 85% of galactic mass which tracked along with normal matter observed, THEN galactic GR dynamics/motions should be MUCH more EXTREME than observed. So 'exotic' DM fantasy has had its day; time to go back to reality-based hypotheses. Cheers. :)

I couldn't agree with you more but you've slipped up with that last comment by giving something else for RC to continue TRYING to wind you up. Please, don't fall for it.

Heh, actually I baited it and as predicted it rose to the bait. Just playing with its mind a little. And using the second best method; it's not going to make much if any difference if I don't reply, since everyone else does. >shrug< Sue me.

@Dingbone, maybe, maybe not. The interesting thing about this is that they have been able to nail down some actual observations that we can do to differentiate their model from ΛCDM and they're not things that are impossible to check. If it's making enough kerfuffle to stimulate such an article in Science someone will probably take up the gauntlet. Also, the main source for the article appears to have missed the fact that the nearby universe SN1a data matches this new AvERA model closer than ΛCDM models.

Like this source, I remain skeptical; but that doesn't mean I'm saying AvERA is silly, misconceived, or obviously wrong. I'll wait to see how it tests out.

I couldn't agree with you more but you've slipped up with that last comment by giving something else for RC to continue TRYING to wind you up. Please, don't fall for it.

Heh, actually I baited it and as predicted it rose to the bait. Just playing with its mind a little. And using the second best method; it's not going to make much if any difference if I don't reply, since everyone else does. >shrug< Sue me.

I couldn't agree with you more but you've slipped up with that last comment by giving something else for RC to continue TRYING to wind you up. Please, don't fall for it.

Heh, actually I baited it and as predicted it rose to the bait. Just playing with its mind a little. And using the second best method; it's not going to make much if any difference if I don't reply, since everyone else does. >shrug< Sue me.

I guess DS is drinking some "Grumpy Old Bastard" beer, tonite.)

That explains his all-over-the-shop inconsistent and erroneous premature insensible crowing and insults 'spew' over in thread:

His equally drunk-with-power-of-whisky 'spew' in this present thread is more face-saving attempts using his drunkards 'version' of what is transpiring under his drink-induced gouty-red-nose: his obsolete, now-increasingly falsified by mainstream, claims are wrong/irrelevant. Sad.

Actually, no, it's a weeknight and I'm drinking a glass of Clos Pegase pinot noir, and I'll only have one; gotta work tomorrow. Just having a little fun.

About sums up your 'spews' based on a drunkard's-and-joker's 'attitude' to scientific method objectivity and resepctful discourse on SCIENCE not persons/source you 'don't like' in your drunken stupor induced insensible lies, denials and accusations while being wrong all along. Pitiable. I had greater hopes yu would become a true objective scientist and observer/discourser one day; that day in patently not here yet (perhaps because you care more for drinking/ganging than you do for science and humanity ethics on a science site (where you condone/join malignant bot-voting ignoramus troll gangs because you enjoy their '5' EVEN WHEN YOU HAVE BEEN DISASTROUSLY WRONG ALL ALONG while insulting those who were right all along. Do MUCH better if you aspire to scientific integrity (instead of 'dutch courage'), mate.

DS, that is observation based on posted evidence from your own lips over many threads,including this one. Your denial/hypocrisy (and other 'projections' of your own flaws) in unseemly, patently clumsy attempts to mischaracterize me because you were wrong and me right all along, on the science and humanity, on many fronts. I feel pity for drunkard/bot-voting trolls who are having 'the rug pulled out from under them' by recent mainstream discovery/reviews. It must be even more galling than having to be corrected by someone who cautioned you about that Bicep2 crap...which you preferred' anyway, attacking the messenger instead. Your gang's drinking/drugging/ganging proclivities make it all clear now what is driving y'all to such insensibly malignant lengths to insult, twist/deny facts/record to suit your ego-tripping/sabotaging 'needs'. Sad. Pity.

As usual, @RC, you are becoming boring, and your attempts at self-aggrandizement, insults, and other typical content lacking any scientific discussion at all are dominating your discourse because you've been proven wrong yet again and have no reply.

A couple more of these and I'll go read a book instead. Hint: try making a reply that's got some integrity when someone points out the flaws in your reasoning instead of trying to double down.

No amount of disjointed (drunk-writing) one liners/hypocritical in-denial face saving attempts will get you out of the self-dug hole you're in. Your posts have included unprovoked attacks, insults and unfounded claims patently in contradiction with the recorded facts and recent mainstream discovery/reviews.

The forum notes how you are 'burying'; and avoiding explaining why your claims are against new evidence; and why you keep insulting, crowing while being so wrong? It's the sign of a egomaniac to 'project' your too-many human failings onto others, mate. It is become lame and not a little sad and pitiable. What a waste of an otherwise good intellect; lost to drink, ego and repetitive old-orthodoxy 'fantasies' based on old and increasingly falsified (by mainstream itself) hypotheses/claims which now are OBVIOUSLY wrong (like Bicep2; but you didn't listen/learn then either).

Get back to science, DS. Stop drink-posting; it's dangerous/unseemly. Do and be better.

sorry you interpret someone telling you you're wrong as an "insult," but I'm not responsible for your paranoid delusions.

The insensibility, hypocrisy and in-denial 'stupor' you demonstrate there is breathtaking in its irony and only equaled by the 'stupor' induced by your admitted drinking. How many times have you had to be corrected, and you jumped in all insulting, ego-raging, while being wrong all along? Too many. It's all there. I even alluded to some of them in various defensive posts against your obsessive (now understood as drunken) campaign of mindlessly attacking the messenger because you didn't like the message which was proving you wrong.

How can otherwise intelligent humans sink so low in integrity, objectivity?

The answer is staring back at you, DS; from the bottom of that bottle you are emptying while posting 'pissed'.

The science was in my first posts; and all over; for years. You miss it all due to your insensible ego, drink, ignoring.

Still no science. Boring. I'm going to go read. I'll see if you've posted any science later, @RC, and if you have, I'll see whether it's more of your pseudoscientific claptrap or an actual serious comment on a subject that should, if you're telling the truth, actually interest you.

I think that what you post next will be very revealing. I don't think you can stop yourself from whining. I don't think you have the integrity or self discipline.

How insensibly in denial can you be, mate? The science in my posts has been there all along (buried by you and your bot-voting troll gang's shite while blaming the victim of your troll-shiting campaign).

Below is the science question/logics you've been avoiding; can you now get back to the science and answer the question/logics I posed here and in the other thread:

MAINSTREAM observations NOW say that the gravitational profiles/motions WITHIN the galaxy (of stars etc) closely tracks/correlates the NOW visible (much more than before) matter/features. So IF 'exotic' DM added 85% EXTRA matter, then gravitational profiles/motions/strengths would be MORE EXTREME than observed. So, your "busted" etc claims are PREMATURE....as always when you open your big mouth to insult/lie instead of actually CHECKING THE LATEST developments/discoveries etc from MAINSTREAM itself.

Oh, and even being a quote from that thread doesn't make your quote on-topic in this one; the quote is about dark *matter*, not dark *energy*. So it appears you also don't know the difference between these two topics, and still don't have anything relevant to say on either thread. Did you even read the *title* of this thread, @RC? Because it doesn't seem as if you did, or if you did as if you understood it. And you certainly didn't read the article, much less the real paper that the article author provided a nice open access arXiv link for.

You might want to actually read what you're commenting on *before* you start commenting on it.

Still at it? Your twisting, weaseling is only prolonging your agony and loss of integrity. Employing tactics to avoid answering scientific questions is lame; you are avoiding.

And in that other thread I responded to your initial reply, in which you ignored the recent developments even RNP is familiar with in this 'exotic' DM in the galaxy issue.

So not only was your initial 'answer' missing the relevant facts, you admitted you still don't KNOW the facts' and keep asking for links to stuff any competent discourser on the 'exotic' DM subject should already be appraised of.

RNP saw that article, and MANY side-discussions have cropped up on many threads since....so your pretense of 'not knowing' and 'asking for link' is lame, dishonest evasion tactics.

Moreover still, your lame 'chastizing' re 'reading article' of this thread is demonstrating the lengths you will go to to evade: since SIDE-DISCUSSIONS are a common occurrence/allowed.

So now, in order to try and weasel out from the mess you made for yourself, you are claiming that SIDE-DISCUSSIONS NEVER ARISE in a thread? And even when a side-issue is raised/discussed by others I am not allowed to participate with relevant contribution on the science/logics?

DS, you are now obviously 'drunk-writing your own rules' here so that you can avoid honest discourse from your end?

Stop with the troll-shite clutter and evasions...answer the points made or admit you are ill informed and so irrelevant and just wasting everybody's time and making an ever bigger fool of yourself than ever. Stop drink-posting; stop troll-shiting; either answer honestly to the science/logics points posed to you/RNP re 'exotic' DM in galaxy etc....or shut your big mouth and stop insulting others while YOU are being so wrong ignorant and lying (again). Do you ever learn, mate? Is this what they taught you at science/humanity classes? You bring shame upon REAL scientists.

The point, @RC, is not about side discussions. It's about you making a false claim. And now here you are trying to change the subject, while you accuse me of "weaseling."

Cute, but transparent.

You're weaseling, @RC, and accusing others of your own faults.

And you still haven't provided any link to support your claims on either thread, and you still haven't answered my very plain and simple argument making the falsity of your claim clear on the other thread either.

The point, @RC, is not about side discussions. It's about you making a false claim. And now here you are trying to change the subject, while you accuse me of "weaseling."

Cute, but transparent.

You're weaseling, @RC, and accusing others of your own faults.

And you still haven't provided any link to support your claims on either thread, and you still haven't answered my very plain and simple argument making the falsity of your claim clear on the other thread either.

Tsk tsk, @RC. Meltdown city.

For someone who accuses others of lying, ignorance etc etc at the drop of a hat, you are pretty phenomenal at being/doing what you accuse others of. Or haven't you even realized/remembered your past (and present) transgressions in that area?

I made NO claim; merely put the logical physical implications in an observation/query for RNP and now YOU to explain how those are consistent with YOUR repeated claims which want it both ways. Got it straight now, DS?

You claimed you posted about dark matter on this thread, quoting a post from another thread. Says so right up there.

You're lying again, @RC.

Tsk, tsk, @RC.

What the hell, mate! How lame is that, switching the 'claims' angle to refer to a post rather than the scientific claim of 'exotic' DM. You still haven't clue-one what the side-discussion with RNP-bschott is about, do you, DS? That is why you are lost in your own twisted maze of 'tactical' crap, DS. Mate, stop insulting while you are drowning in your own troll-shite which started because you (again) jumped to the attack while being NOT UP TO SPEED with what's going on either in the relevant science or in the relevant discussion. Why keep 'bombing' others' discussions and ruining them with your misapprehended troll-shite posts and insults and lies based on your own CONFUSIONS, DS? Take a breather; stop the drinking; start the thinking with objectivity instead of ego. Try.

@Seeker, please look again. The quote @RC provided when claiming he was talking about scientific content was provided on the black hole thread, not this thread. You appear to have allowed him to confuse you. That was his intent.

@RC, you're the one who wanted to talk about process (and you always do, when your content arguments get owned, it's your go-to strategem); I was content to stick to content. But if you're going to bring it up you can expect to get hammered on it. If you don't want to talk about process, then leave it out and we'll talk about the content. Not that I expect you're capable of that.

@Seeker, please look again. The quote @RC provided when claiming he was talking about scientific content was provided on the black hole thread, not this thread. You appear to have allowed him to confuse you. That was his intent.

You're doing quite well in that regard. I'm talking about a quote about dark matter in response to a question about dark energy, not literally about scientific content.

Oh, and continuing right along, @RC, a conversation about dark matter is still off-topic on a thread about an article on dark energy, and you still don't appear to know the difference between them, even if you'd posted your argument on the right thread in the first place.

Stop the evasion tactics, mate. Cut to the crux of the matter. Answer the inescapable logical implications of what the new mainstream discovery has for the INTERIOR of galaxy motions and your claims that the 'exotic' DM is outside the galaxy.

Have you asked RNP to inform you of what the relevant article and side-discussion is about?

You seem to be talking while missing half the facts in evidence on this science point side-issue re 'exotic' DM etc.

I'm sorry, I couldn't find anywhere that added to what you originally said about not telling anyone and they should find it out themselves. I checked the update article, and you merely reposted and reaffirmed that you felt it was a waste of your time to continue. I checked several other articles where your name and "fatal flaws" came up in phys.org, but was unable to find one that actually mentions your findings. It's all searchable, regardless of voting, unless a moderator has removed (highly unlikely) the post itself.

To me this means I have searched for what I feel was a reasonable amount of time to find your scientific proof against a paper that is/was up for peer review, yet could find nothing. If you have posted it somewhere, perhaps it's time to repost in order to allow science to take it's course? If you can't post the whole thing, a snippet would be a good start to allowing genuine discussion to take place prior to any book publishing. Perhaps one flaw?

I'm sorry, ... To me this means I have searched for what I feel was a reasonable amount of time to find your scientific proof against a paper that is/was up for peer review, yet could find nothing. If you have posted it somewhere, perhaps it's time to repost in order to allow science to take it's course? If you can't post the whole thing, a snippet would be a good start to allowing genuine discussion to take place prior to any book publishing. Perhaps one flaw?.

To me that means RC just wasted of bunch of YOUR valuable time on fruitless (un)due diligence...Welcome to Phys.Org comments section, where RC is king of "/" - and very little else....:-)

I don't think so. I see time as a ratio of changes in spacetime configuration. I don't understand the concept of a 4th dimension. Time seems to be perfectly understood as changes in 3d spatial configuration. That's why Einstein treated time similar to space. You have to do it that way. I'd say dark energy feeds the expansion (or growth) of spacetime which I think causes gravity.

Since it is (space-time) the an incremental increase in time would make a difference in expansion rate.

Exponential growth means the more growth the more there is to grow so the expansion rate increases. Like runaway inflation. Question is, is there anything that can stop it? Maybe the dark energy runs out after the lights go out. But if the growth powers gravity, then after growth no more gravity. However growth may also involve stretching, and when the limit of elasticity is reached, compression begins and the cyclical U continues. Your guess is as good as mine.

...the inescapable logical implications of what the new mainstream discovery has for the INTERIOR of galaxy motions and your claims that the 'exotic' DM is outside the galaxy.

Spacetime growth (gravity) is stronger outside of galaxies. Galaxies are where spacetime gets pushed into black holes to re-emerge outside galaxies in the form of white holes pushing galaxies even further apart as has been observed but probably not interpreted like that. Yet anyway. All processes being fueled by the dark energy. This has been observed as flattening the spirals around the outside regions of spiral galaxies.

The responsible, objective researcher waits until the right of reply has been exhausted before concluding anything about the issue. Your latest above demonstrates you are neither responsible nor objective. Hence irrelevant troll noise issuing from a ego-tripping and unscientific 'mind' badly affected by whatever it is that is causing you to default to such cheap and nasty shots from a cowardly position of pandering to the bully gangs and bot-voting ignoramuses instead of just listening and learning objectively, honestly...and bravely. If your wife is still watching, she should give you another clip round the ear and tell you to stop bringing such 'trolling internet loser' shame on her and the rest of your family. Be better than this, Whyde; science and humanity need you to be; goodness knows the world is already replete with such malice and ignorance as you/your 'gang' bring here to PO; we don't need more of it but less. Thanks.

Subsequent side-discussions occurring in unconnected threads not prefaced with the 'tag' of "fatal flaws", but were posted impromptu in other discussions re CMB etc.

As for my initial posts in original/subsequent 'update thread', I said I was not at liberty to discuss specifically or in detail because the info formed part of my complete works to be published when ready. NEVERTHELESS, I categorized the flaws.

In subsequent discussions elsewhere I even mentioned a most telling spurious/illogical assumption(s) on which Bicep2 (and ALL exercises/models for PRIMORDIAL Gravitational Waves 'detection/interpretations') rely:

- Bicep2 etc assumption (ie, that PRIMORDIAL quantum fluctuations would GROW and be large enough to show up 'now' in CMB) is obviously counter-logical; as the 'smoothing' RATIONAL FOR 'Inflation' would WEAKEN, extremely DIFFUSE into undetectability any such;

This happens sometimes, RC falls off his or her meds, fixates on a thread and feels compelled to reply to almost every post. Keep them occupied here, they'll probably not get too involved in any other threads :)

- Bicep2 etc assumption (ie, that PRIMORDIAL quantum fluctuations would GROW and be large enough to show up 'now' in CMB) is obviously counter-logical; as the 'smoothing' RATIONAL FOR 'Inflation' would WEAKEN, extremely DIFFUSE into undetectability any such;- Inflation itself is 'bogus' (as Prof Paul Steinhardt has since admitted).Thanks.

RC,You are not the first to posit steady state. Not by a long shot. Nor are you the last.Hell, I'm even on board,some.I'd even go so far as to say we are in a 13.4bn yr radius resolution bubble (our resolution limit for now) corkscrewing our way thru a MUCH larger expanse. However, crowing "I told you so" every time, looks and sounds downright sophomoric (If not Freshman-ish)Therefore, quit claiming credit for all things that indicate so. And implying those who've spent years studying this have no idea what they are talking about, is about as insulting as you can possibly get.Makes you sound like my Grandmother... Sheesh...

This happens sometimes, RC falls off his or her meds, fixates on a thread and feels compelled to reply to almost every post. Keep them occupied here, they'll probably not get too involved in any other threads :)

More btroll shite from you, on top of that you left behind on the floor in thread:

For starters, I only post to defend against crap-attacks from trolling losers (like you seem determined to be on the internet forums); and I post when I feel it may help to improve the decorum and efficacy of science/logics on topic discourse here between people who want to do so without bot-voting and insensible trolling idiots like you are fast becoming here. Either be fair and constructive and respectful, or just remain what you seem not to be able to improve on....a trolling internet loser, even in a science site! Be/Do better, ZergSurfer. Thanks.

- Bicep2 etc assumption (ie, that PRIMORDIAL quantum fluctuations would GROW and be large enough to show up 'now' in CMB) is obviously counter-logical; as the 'smoothing' RATIONAL FOR 'Inflation' would WEAKEN, extremely DIFFUSE into undetectability any such;- Inflation itself is 'bogus' (as Prof Paul Steinhardt has since admitted).

You are not the first to posit steady state. Not by a long shot. Nor are you the last.Hell, I'm even on board,some

That was in reply to questions from @imfromcanada. And where did I claim to be "first" re 'Steady State'? Never did. You're on a non-sequitur there.

Therefore, quit claiming credit for all things that indicate so. And implying those who've spent years studying this have no idea what they are talking about, is about as insulting as you can possibly get.

Never claimed credit for those; merely REMINDED everyone of all those as indicated, including OCAM'S RAZOR views; my original ToE insights only add to it all.

Seriously, do you 'listen to yourself' as you make those keyboard strokes? Your attitude belongs in the long dead past and 'closed shop' of religionistic gangs; when their approved 'anointed ones' were the only 'authorities' that should be listened to/believed; when their selected 'sacrosanct churches' were the only 'approved venues' for the masses to congregate and 'hear and obey the word' of their religious 'beliefs'.

Mate, realize that you are NOW in the INTERNET AGE/VENUE. :)

Where discussion and ideas are COMMON PROPERTY for OPEN DISCUSSION untrammeled by 'elitist' and/or 'orthodoxy' restrictions as to what and/or where people can discuss and contribute to the 'science and humanity' zeitgeist, according to OBJECTIVE MERITS (or falsification).

Only anti-science/anti-humanity types would try to CENSOR and/or CONTROL ideas/venues.

As for your dismissive remarks/characterization of PO Forum, you'd be surprised who is reading here!

@RC"and I post when I feel it may help to improve the decorum and efficacy of science/logics on topic discourse"No, you post to feed your narcissistic need for attention. You have never added any value to any thread you have invaded. You are noise.

@RC"and I post when I feel it may help to improve the decorum and efficacy of science/logics on topic discourse"No, you post to feed your narcissistic need for attention. You have never added any value to any thread you have invaded. You are noise.

BS try, mate. The record says different. And your troll-shiting while "chuckling", on a science site, tells the Forum all they need to know to make their own decisions about that. You didn't even get your 'story' straight when accused me of "following you to another thread"...where in fact it was YOU who posted unprovoked and specious insulting remarks about me which necessitated a response accordingly. Your troll-shiting-while-chuckling is no substitute for competence and honesty, Zerg. Re-think it, mate; then re-register and start afresh under a new username...this one is covered in your own troll-shite and may be irreparably soiled beyond hope of getting clean again. Do/Be better next time round, "old hand".

@RC" You didn't even get your 'story' straight when accused me of "following you to another thread"...where in fact it was YOU who posted unprovoked and specious insulting remarks about me which necessitated a response accordingly."Oh dear. Clear evidence of delusions I'm afraid.In response to a comment by Chris Alfven, my comment was;-"So, instead of looking to observations of filamentation in plasmas which anybody can see occurs in a novelty plasma globe"What. The. Actual. F**k....Literally no words..."https://phys.org/...ter.htmlI don't see your name there. Or in any of the comments.

...met with my response because yours came up while I was ALREADY READING the comments therein. So I was not "following you" THERE.

Then your comments in THIS PRESENT thread got my attention because I was reading through here as well and your unprovoked insulting and disparaging remarks about ME were in contradiction to the recorded post history. Hence I didn't 'follow you" HERE either.

Get it? It was YOUR troll-shite THERE, and then HERE, which I saw while I was reading the threads, that prompted my posts in response in both threads. You only had yourself to blame, mate.

Don't you and 'the other guys' ever learn? YOU are as much a 'problem' here as those whom you personally/unscientifically/unfairly attack irrespective of whether their post contained correct science/logics or not? You demean science/humanity.

What the people who proposed this hypothesis said is that proposed dark energy, the Λ in ΛCDM, is not actually necessary to explain accelerating expansion (and we already know from observation that accelerating expansion is an observed feature of the universe). They're not claiming there's no accelerating expansion; they're claiming that the existence of large voids with higher expansion factors can account for the acceleration.

Who agrees or disagrees with this, and what is their evidence for this agreement or disagreement?

They're not claiming there's no accelerating expansion; they're claiming that the existence of large voids with higher expansion factors can account for the acceleration.

Who agrees or disagrees with this, and what is their evidence for this agreement or disagreement?

I don't think so. Partly because of your discussion about decaying DM. Which I think is due to natural mixing of different spacetime densities. But that's because of my opinion about what DM is. Similar to gravity, the existence of low density spacetime, coming from, initially, primordial vacuum fluctuations. But these different densities should normally decay, which certainly wouldn't support accelerated expansion. I think there's a driving force driving the expansion between galaxies, namely white holes, simultaneously driving spacetime into black holes, dragging matter along with it. Currently, all driven by the Λ in ΛCDM.

(and we already know from observation that accelerating expansion is an observed feature of the universe)

Above article, and your own comment above, takes for granted, as 'a scientifically established fact', that "Expansion" is 'actually physically happening'. Consider further your own and other mainstream 'understandings/explanations' re Expansion: that, apart from PROPER MOTIONAL relative velocities ACROSS space, any gravitating mass/emitter is 'effectively stationary' LOCALLY with respect to the space volume it occupies.

Question arises: If alleged 'expansion' does NOT 'shift' spectrum of emitted EM radiation/photons (because, according to above 'understanding', the local imperceptible 'alleged expansion' has NO effect on locally radiated photons), then what is supposed to effect the claimed 'expansion related shift' component in detected photons traveling cosmological distances to 'here'?

In the interests of forestalling potential attacks based on indignant reaction to such 'temerity' and 'blasphemy' against whatever orthodoxy my interlocutor(s) may be currently 'enamored' with, I will remind now of the recent 'blasphemy' and 'temerity' of Prof Paul Steinhardt's expose of the bogus INFLATION ' notion' which was 'treated as fact' by mainstream researchers and paper-writers for DECADES, despite it having NO actual objective scientifically tenable evidence (only assumptions and interpretations based on modeling using those assumptions) to support it!

Likewise, 'evidence in support' so far claimed FOR "Expansion (accelerating or otherwise) is equally assumptional/interpretational/modeling based, and NOT actual tenable objective scientific/logics based!

So pause before kneejerking to attack based only on your 'beliefs' in what currently treated as 'fact', but which IN FACT have NO actual objective scientifically tenable support at all. Good luck.

@RC, it's a matter of physical fact established by SN1a data that the universe is expanding. Furthermore, it's also established from that same data that the rate of expansion is increasing over time and started doing so about 7 billion years ago, when the universe was half its current age.

There are two "tricks" involved with this. One is that the light curve of a Type 1a supernova (SN1a) is highly characteristic. This means that a SN1a explosion can be "fingerprinted" by watching how the light varies over time. The second "trick" is that the velocity of an object can be found from observing the shift of spectral lines, which are also a "fingerprint," because specific elements give out specific lines, and even if they're shifted these patterns of lines remain the same, just at a different frequency. This means that we know both the distance and the velocity of a SN1a at the same time. [contd]

[contd]Given both distance and velocity, it's trivial to determine how velocity changes over time, by observing many SN1as. When we do the math, we find that up until about 7 billion years ago, the universe's rate of expansion was decelerating; then it leveled off, and started accelerating.

This is observation, not theory. Observations are physical facts, and contradicting them is delusional. This is not brand-new, either; we've known it since the late 1990s. Three separate surveys-- The Supernova Cosmology Project, the High-Z Supernova Search Team, and the Supernova Legacy Survey-- have all found the same data. The Hi-Z and SCP team leaders shared the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics for this discovery.

Your ongoing claims that this represents some sort of "orthodoxy" are unfounded. The brightness curves are what they are, and the spectra are what they are, and those are physical facts. There is nowhere to hide.

Even the article we're discussing here doesn't question that the universe is expanding, and that the expansion is accelerating. All it questions is the reason for the expansion.

In the Standard Model of Cosmology, called the ΛCDM model, a particular term in the left side of the Einstein Field Equations, called the "cosmological term," is theorized to account for this expansion. Since this factor, called Λ, is a direct property of spacetime, as spacetime grows, the amount of this factor increases. Some folks called this "dark energy," but it's really not a very good term for it. Others call it "negative gravity" or "antigravity," but those aren't really good terms either.

Note that the value of Λ does not change; it's the growth in the amount of spacetime due to expansion that increases its influence. Because gravity opposes Λ, empty spaces have more Λ than spaces filled with matter, like galaxy clusters and so forth. [contd]

[contd]Let's digress a moment. Galaxy surveys have shown that the universe is composed of filaments of matter, surrounded and separated by large voids empty of matter. The matter has clustered, and this is due to gravity. Galaxy clusters define these filaments, and make them visible to us. The Hubble has done a lot of work that has led to this finding, and there have been several very large galaxy surveys that have done a lot more. SDSS comes immediately to mind, as does the ongoing GAMA survey being conducted at some of the most advanced and powerful facilities in the world.

In ΛCDM, then, it is obvious that most of the expansion has to take place in the voids, where Λ is not opposed by the gravitation of matter. A lot of wild speculation has been made about the implications of ΛCDM, including eventual dissociation of galaxy clusters and even galaxies under the influence of Λ; I think this is footless. [contd]

[contd]I think that the influence of gravity on the filaments means that while the filaments may grow further apart over time, they will also concentrate due to the mass in them, and because of this the amount of void space in them will decrease. Instead of the Milky Way, or even the Solar System, separating from everything else, it will be the Virgo Supercluster, or perhaps the Laniakea Supercluster (which is not well defined at this time), which are the two hierarchically containing superclusters of which our Local Group centered on the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy is a member, which will separate from everything else.

I may be wrong; but at worst I think that the Milky Way will remain, and probably the Local Group.

So we can see that the paper we're discussing here actually falls in with my views fairly well. You will note however that I am not crowing about it or making any claims in advance of evidence.

I'm called away by off-line matters for the time being, so I must for the moment leave your above polite, erudite replies for answering later/tomorrow. Until then I would suggest you acquaint yourself with all the recent-years/weeks of PO articles reporting on the previously-unsuspected variability across types (and even sub-types!) of SNs previously used in 'standard candle' parts of the Cosmic Distance Ladder construct/methodologies for estimating distances which naively applied 'Intrinsic Brightness' interpretations when the actual Intrinsic Brightness was far from what was assumed in the various models and the various presumptions as to what 'type' of SN was actually being 'observed' and used as part of the "Expanding Universe" so-called discovery of "Acceleration" of same. Again, I merely remind of what may be being missed by some when it comes to on-going discovery/review by mainstream ITSELF on these and many other fronts/issues.

As far as the different populations of SN1a are concerned, I am aware of these results, but you apparently are not aware that the difference is insufficient to account for all of the acceleration. Even accounting for these two different populations of SN1a, the acceleration can still be seen to be occurring. It's just a matter of reducing Λ a bit. Here's some evidence: https://www.eurek...1015.php You'll find a link to the scholarly paper at the end of that article, and it's complete, not just the abstract. Pretty much open access.

Interestingly, the effect on the light curves of these two populations is controlled by the metallicity of the progenitor white dwarfs; and this was also a problem with Cepheid variables, which are used for distance estimates at ranges within our supercluster. [contd]

[contd]What we see is that more recently formed stars, with higher metallicity because there has been more time to cook up heavy elements that were incorporated into them, form one population, and older stars, formed when there were not so many heavy elements, form the other. In other words, there are Population I and Population II white dwarfs, and when each forms a SN1a, they have slightly different light curves. This also turned out to be the case with Cepheid variables, and resulted in changes to our estimates of distances to galaxies within our supercluster, the Virgo Supercluster.

However, as I've noted above, even allowing for these different populations, we still see strong evidence of accelerating expansion. So this is insufficient evidence to claim that there is no accelerating expansion, as you are apparently claiming.

Since this factor, called Λ, is a direct property of spacetime, as spacetime grows, the amount of this factor increases.

I'm thinking this factor is the constant in the expression for exponential expansion, ie, e^(Λt). This factor grows in time, linearly at first but then the higher order terms of the Taylor expansion kick in. Result is accelerating expansion, no change in Λ required for exponential growth.

I think that the influence of gravity on the filaments means that while the filaments may grow further apart over time, they will also concentrate due to the mass in them, and because of this the amount of void space in them will decrease.

I don't think the mass in them is relevant. The filaments are merely warped, or in this case stretched, spacetime. Stretched by the force of gravity between galaxies. Certainly the amount of void space between galaxies will decrease as the galaxies move further apart because the force of gravity between the galaxies will decrease. Note the difference in spacetime density in the voids vs outside the voids means the refractive index of light is changed leading to lensing. Which is how we know the filaments are there. The mass difference inside and outside filaments having nothing to do with lensing. I can elaborate if desired.

Because gravity opposes Λ, empty spaces have more Λ than spaces filled with matter, like galaxy clusters and so forth.

I'm not sure about your reason, but I think the statement is true. I would say an implication of this is that the force of gravity outside of galaxies is greater than that inside galaxies, leading to the suppression of the spiral arms around the outside of spiral galaxies (flattening). People get upset about this thinking there must something wrong with the theory of gravity. I don't thinking there's anything wrong with the theory. It's just that the gravitational constant G is greater outside galaxies.

Surprising claim! Tell that to the mainstream astronomers/theorists who have been trying to come up with some reliable means of telling distances to objects/events even at 100 thousands lightyears, let alone billions of lightyears. The problem which afflicts current distance ladder methodologies/models (especially for billion+ lightyear distances, is that it is all so circuitous and naive, both in assumptions and interpretations built into the modeling therefrom (I also pointed out many of the technical/observational problems as well for IMP-9 some time back).

Anyway, back to the SN data/interpretations/modeling/assumptions etc methodology/dependency, which has a whole slew of problems re naivete' and unreliability all on its own.

I am heartened you (and I can only hope/trust IMP-9, RNP et al also) have taken my suggestion seriously; and started to update yourselves re the new discoveries/reviews over recent years.

However, you seem not to have caught up yet; or have missed full import/implications of what I have been keeping abreast of re SN variability problems/discoveries reported for a decade and more recently in PO articles.

Consider: Intrinsic Brightness is now a problem to determine via the old assumed 'standard model' for such observations. The 'observed' Brightness has been found to differ not only intrinsically due to local conditions/geometry/dust etc variables, but also due to SNs themselves varying as to 'type', and 'mimicking' what may be assumed to be the 'expected type' when observations/spectrometry etc analysis is done and interpreted/modeled accordingly. So you see, your naive trust that all the problems and variability factors and their interpretatiions as to what eactly is being observed, shows that you have only skimmed the surface in your latest to 'catch up' reading. That is why you seem to only repeat a still-simplistic 'overview'.

Re "Light Curve": old certainties and standard modeling expectations have flown out the window! New observations/discoveries/reviews found 'mimicking' of 'light curves' also occurs between more than just the obvious candidate 'types' expected. So, again, previous assumptions and claims are open to question. This only ADDS to all the preceding aspects which keep bringing the 'accelerated expansion' models/claims relying on distances, brightness, redness etc into serious doubt.

And speaking of redness, it is now beyond denying that 'naivete' rather than 'logic' has been the 'method'...until now! I quote...

"Since nobody realized that before, all these supernovae were thrown in the same barrel. But if you were to look at 10 of them nearby, those 10 are going to be redder on average than a sample of 10 faraway supernovae."

There has also been recent article pointing out that even the Lyman alpha radiation spectrum/shift etc (on which many past (and still) interpretations of observed light data analysis/models, claims etc rely), rae also able to be mimicked by other than the relevant Hydrogen! Atoms and molecules, under certain high energy-sctivated conditions/states can produce similar radiation and 'lines' observed 'here' so far away without actual real knowledge of what produced it at, either at source or in intervening high-energy processes/interactions etc. So, gain, yet another 'naive' assumption/interpretation based on unreliably based models relying on assumed 'standard/exclusive source of emissions etc, bites the dust.

Re my questioning 'orthodoxy': I allude to 'orthodoxy' of assumptions, interpretations, modeling/claims per se. The actual observed light data collected by our instruments is what it is. It is Expanding Spacetime 'orthodoxy' that is questioned. Ok?

I am glad to read that you recognize now the fact that all those papers/claims regarding 'expanding spacetime' causes etc ALREADY ASSUME a-priori for their arguments and exercise and claims/logics that such "Expansion/Accelerated Expansion" is 'fact'.

Which make them all suspect from the get-go. Since, as the above posts from me (reflecting the findings/implications of a decade of new astro/cosmo discovery/review by mainstream ITSELF now) indicate, there is serious question as to Expansion, let alone Accelerated Expansion taking place in reality at all.

What is the 'take away insight' from all this? Well, when we combine the above serious questions re various 'standard modeling' assumptions etc etc, there may be NO actual supporting scientifically tenable evidence FOR Expansion/Accelerated Expansion AT ALL (as Prof Paul Steinhardt has also finally admitted was the case for DECADES re INFLATION claims; and he said so to his professional cosmology theorist peers).

I am heartened you (and I can only hope/trust IMP-9, RNP et al also) have taken my suggestion seriously; and started to update yourselves re the new discoveries/reviews over recent years.

I, for one, most certainly do NOT take anything you say seriously. Virtually every claim you make on this site is unsupported and easily refuted. Consequently, your overblown description of your contributions here must be viewed as either fraudulent or delusional. That is why, for the most part, I ignore you.

This recent (again unsupported) garbage that you have been spouting about the distance ladder is just another case in point. If you have evidence for this claim SUPPLY IT. If not, I suggest then keep you poorly informed opinions to yourself.

I am heartened you (and I can only hope/trust IMP-9, RNP et al also) have taken my suggestion seriously; and started to update yourselves re the new discoveries/reviews over recent years.

I, for one, most certainly do NOT take anything you say seriously. Virtually every claim you make on this site is unsupported and easily refuted. Consequently, your overblown description of your contributions here must be viewed as either fraudulent or delusional. That is why, for the most part, I ignore you. If you have evidence for this claim SUPPLY IT.

I have alluded to a LOT of that already in my posts to DS and before that for a long time, RNP. Out of personal pride/spite you chose to IGNORE; and STILL choose to. But be aware: 'ignore' breeds 'ignorance'; a fatal flaw in any would-be scientists/cosmologist, as it leads to missing the latest evidence, even that from mainstream research/review itself, on many fronts. Your 'ignore' approach is dooming you to 'beliefs'.

@DSWell let's say @RC is computer-assisted. That is you feed your text into a program which looks up all synonyms for big words. Or you may maintain a database of your favorite synonyms. It then gets out its slashes and appends those synonyms to the original big words. Then you submit your post. Possibly other automated obfuscation techniques also. Just haven't figured those ones out yet. Possibly hijacked from automated spell checking software.

I know a science fiction writer who used to get paid a penny per word. Nowadays it's probably a penny a character. So run your slasher software and get bonus points.

First, I already addressed the paper underlying the phys.org article you linked. As I said above, it does not show that there is no accelerating expansion. The full paper is available from the publisher, and you should probably read it. The astronomer who wrote it is very careful to indicate that it does not in any way overturn the SN1a results that show there is accelerating expansion; it merely requires that the rate of expansion be turned down a bit to take the difference in the populations into account.

Second, there are no "papers," apparently, except the one you linked. If there are, please link them.

[contd]Third, the distance ladders don't matter because we can see SN1a here in our own galaxy, and see that they must be within short distances because they are within our galaxy. Thus, even using only their peak brightness, and the redshifts of SN1a in other galaxies, compared with the redshifts of those galaxies, we can get approximate results. These results make it clear that there is accelerating expansion, even without the distance ladder components.

Back to the second point, you really do need to be prepared to back up your assertions with links to real science; and back to the first, you need to avoid making claims that are overblown given the evidence you present. These are bad habits and they make you less credible.

What are you MISSING, DS? Yep, the most important implication, that's what. Here it is again for you to READ CAREFULLY and not kneejerk to your pre-prepared 'orthodoxy' based WRONG assumnptions again:

And speaking of redness, it is now beyond denying that 'naivete' rather than 'logic' has been the 'method'...until now! I quote...

"Since nobody realized that before, all these supernovae were thrown in the same barrel. But if you were to look at 10 of them nearby, those 10 are going to be redder on average than a sample of 10 faraway supernovae."

See the IMPORTANT implication(s)? If they have been doing that; and CONFUSING even NEARBY SN populations data/parameters, then HOW ON EARTH can you STILL claim it is only a MINOR matter?! If SN data/conclusion is EVEN MORE UNreliable for cosmically FAR distant SNs, then how can you STILL 'believe' it is 'tenable support' for Expansion?! Duh.

Third, the distance ladders don't matter because we can see SN1a here in our own galaxy, and see that they must be within short distances because they are within our galaxy. Thus, even using only their peak brightness, and the redshifts of SN1a in other galaxies, compared with the redshifts of those galaxies, we can get approximate results. These results make it clear that there is accelerating expansion, even without the distance ladder components.

Back to the second point, you really do need to be prepared to back up your assertions with links to real science; and back to the first, you need to avoid making claims that are overblown given the evidence you present. These are bad habits and they make you less credible.

All, that, plus your 'ignore-and-deny-evade' tactics, is to cover up/distract from fact YOU are NOT YET 'up to speed' with ALL the latest discoveries/reviews. Prepare yourself, DS. I am not here to bring you up to speed ON IT ALL! Sad.

Prepare yourself, DS. I am not here to bring you up to speed ON IT ALL! Sad.

How could you be so cruel?

Do you think it "cruel" to urge would-be discoursers on science to update themselves re the latest mainstream discoveries/reviews which is injcreasibgly falsifying and otherwise bringing into serious question certain previously held 'orthodoxy' in cosmology theory/understandings?

They seem to follow me around. Enough to make one paranoid. They don't seem to publish however.

How long before Darwin and Newton published their respective magnum opus? Patience.

Have any of them been confirmed correct all along like I have been, by new mainstream discovery/reviews, and on many fronts? That would be an interesting 'statistic' if it were valid, hey? Cheers.

Oh yes. They're all infallible.

One can be correct on an issue, or even many issues, but that is just being correct on the issue(s). The "infallible" is just your opinio

Prepare yourself, DS. I am not here to bring you up to speed ON IT ALL! Sad.

How could you be so cruel?

Do you think it "cruel" to urge would-be discoursers on science to update themselves re the latest mainstream discoveries/reviews which is injcreasibgly falsifying and otherwise bringing into serious question certain previously held 'orthodoxy' in cosmology theory/understandings?

They seem to follow me around. Enough to make one paranoid. They don't seem to publish however.

How long before Darwin and Newton published their respective magnum opus? Patience.

Have any of them been confirmed correct all along like I have been, by new mainstream discovery/reviews, and on many fronts? That would be an interesting 'statistic' if it were valid, hey? Cheers.

Oh yes. They're all infallible.

One can be correct on an issue, or even many issues, but that is just being correct on the issue(s); the "infallible" is just your opinion.

Do you think it "cruel" to urge would-be discoursers on science to update themselves

Maybe insinuating would be a better word.

You 'insinuating' something? lol

I explicitly encourage objective and impartial science discourse. A thankless task, as objective and impartial science discourse seems to be a subject for ridicule for 'the gang' here, apparently.

How long before Darwin and Newton published their respective magnum opus? Patience.

The world anxiously awaits your magnum opus while you fritter away your time berating people on PO.

Not "frittering". Just 'soundboarding', discussing/checking recent science discovery/reviews results which may form part of the supporting evidence for what my novel consistent ToE theorizing process has come up with objectively. It's called 'keeping up to date and in touch' while finalizing the reality-maths.

Do you think it "cruel" to urge would-be discoursers on science to update themselves

Maybe insinuating would be a better word.

You 'insinuating' something? lol

I explicitly encourage objective/impartial science/discourse. A thankless task, as objective/impartial science/discourse seems to be a subject for ridicule for 'the gang' here, apparently.

How long before Darwin and Newton published their respective magnum opus? Patience.

The world anxiously awaits your magnum opus while you fritter away your time berating people on PO.

Not "frittering". Just 'soundboarding', discussing/checking recent science discovery/reviews results which may form part of the supporting evidence for what my novel consistent ToE theorizing process has come up with objectively. It's called 'keeping up to date and in touch' while finalizing the reality-maths.

I have been trying that for years. The troll-shiters still troll-shite and insult and sabotage and just plain ruin things for all members who want to discuss science/logics on objective merits in discussion not 'personal/ego' imposed by a bot-voting bullying ignoramuses 'gang' who bring shame on all true scientists and science ethics/discourse. Oh, and leave Larry out of this! :)

A thankless task trying to parse your sentence structures. :(

Why should anyone thank you for what you should be doing to inform yourself; by looking for the insights wherever they may be found and in whatever form they come in? That is what true "Seekers" do; irrespective of language/format (even a text-limited 'comment box'). Relax; and read more closely/carefully, and don't be put off by the "/"s or the " :)"s or etc! :)

... in the case of a black hole, space is being "squeezed out" as the density of matter increases.

Note: atoms turn out to be 99.99999999% empty space, so it would take a lot of matter to displace any significant amount of space. I see it as space is being pumped into black holes as the dark energy (the Λ in ΛCDM, or the driving force behind gravity) pumps space into black holes. Note that because of the power of the dark energy it doesn't take much of a gradient to drive gravity. So a very small amount of matter can affect a strong driving force of space. Hence black holes.

contAnyway I bring this up reading about supervoids in late-time gravitational lensing. Late time meaning driven by the dark energy Λ. It would appear that these supervoids are the white holes where space is being pumped into through wormholes from the black holes. Just a lucky guess?

@DS You lost me on the filaments containing matter. Which I'm sure there must be some there somewhere. Anyway gravitational lensing, which I believe is how we know the filaments are there, is caused by warped spacetime, as I understand. The warping is caused by the presence of large objects containing matter, at least in the orthodox interpretation, also as I understand. The matter is in the large objects causing the warping, not in the spacetime itself being warped, or so it seems. Which is not to say there is no matter in the warped spacetime other than the object doing the warping. In politics they would call it incidental matter. Anyway it seems there must be warpage connecting galaxies because the galaxies contain matter. So I presume this is the warpage detected as the filaments. No incidental stuff would be required. :)

@Seeker no explanation for voids is necessary other than to note that filaments are all moving apart and filaments contain all the matter.

Why are you so averse to updating yourself on what mainstream is DISCOVERING IN the so-called 'voids' NOW?

They are NOT 'empty' of matter. They are replete with LOW-LUMINOSITY NORMAL-MATTER gaseous/aggregate features/objects at all scales.

The LABEL of 'voids' was a MISTAKEN assumption due to material therein being PREVIOUSLY undetectable by telescopes when that 'label' of 'void' was 'coined' many decades ago.

DS, LEARN before you open your mouth about things which you are STILL IGNORANT OF because you don't look/update before you REGURGITATE OLD ORTHODOXY assumptions/interpretations being falsified as we speak...BY MAINSTREAM ITSELF!

DS, drop the Stumpy Method of "Ignore and Deny"; it makes you come across as an ignorant 'believer' in OLD orthodoxy instead of a genuine up to date objective observer.

While doing research into @RC's claims that the voids aren't completely empty (risible in and of itself, no one ever claimed they are completely empty, just empty of features like filaments and large galaxy clusters-- @RC is lying again), I found a pretty interesting article published late last year on a study of the voids that adds some evidence to substantiate the AvERA model from the article we're commenting on here: https://arxiv.org...02.01784

Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer himself, wrote an article on this in his Bad Astronomy blog on Slate magazine last December: http://www.slate....ons.html

Note that Phil shows yet again that @RC is lying about GRT and slandering Einstein.

(Readers should note that by "bad" I mean "extremely good," which probably dates me.)

If anyone but @RC and me are still reading these comments, and would like to know exactly how these results from Sutter at OSU relate to the current article speak up and I'll explain it.

Meanwhile, news flash: @RC is lying again, and busted again.

Which all goes to show, @RC, that you should keep your stinking pie hole shut on your lies, because you brought this on yourself by lying; I only found this because I was checking on your lies. And it makes you look even stupider than you already did. Hoist by your own petard, I believe they call that.

@Stumpy. You are a waste of time, Stump. You can't even find where in this very thread, in my reply to @imfromcanada, I mentioned one most telling flaw of Bicep2 'exercise' from the get-go! If you can't find that 'under your very nose', then what hope have you of finding all the stuff you went out of your way to IGNORE and then DENY because you employ your Stump Method of 'looking': "TL ; DR" (ie, too long, didn't read). Leave off, Stumpy; you're a joke now. Be quiet and stop your time-wasting challenges for stuff you will again just ignore and deny, just as you have done too many times already...and I told you I am not going to waste my time looking through all the relevant threads/discussions just because you failed to do it for yourself all along. Stay ignorant and in denial, Stumpy....you made that bed now you lie in it. Maybe now you will not ignore instead of looking before you deny. Some hope!

All you have done is be selective in what you 'find'; missing all the most important new discoveries/reviews which make all those claims/models MOOT. Because the huge quantities of ordinary matter in both filaments AND so-called 'voids' regions implies all those exotic DM and dark energy "fudges" were UNNECESSARY and wrong from both a logics and physics perspective. Only 'theorists' believing in UNreal things like BB, Inflation/Expansion/Accelerating-Expansion etc are the ones still HOPING to write more 'papers' to fill the literature with more PUBLISH-OR-PERISH 'hack crap' (just as the Bicep2 'team' tried but failed because observers like me were onto it like a shot while 'mainstream peers' were pussyfooting around and trying to put a brave face on that fiasco.

As for "keeping your pie hole shut", it was the advice I gave you, based on the many instances when you were wrong all along yet still accused me of lying etc. You 'conveniently forget'; so never learn.

@RC, as long as you keep posting here without apologizing for your self-aggrandizing lies, I'm going to keep rubbing your nose in it just like a puppy who requires consistent discipline before they learn anything.

Quite simply, you have no response to the paper I found and you know it and I know it and the proof is you keep trying to make this about process instead of about the facts. Sniff the widdle, @RC. You're lying again, @RC.

@RC posts again after having been proven to be lying for personal self-aggrandizement on this site. Shame on you, @RC. Apologize to the site before you widdle any more.

Posters who boast about NOT READING what is posted to them, and then open their big mouth in more self-inflicted ignorance, are just the types which made for the Bicep2 fiasco and all the Inflation crap that has infested the literature for decades. If Da Schneib had been a scientist/physicist he would have fit right in with that Bicep2 'team'; so enamoured with their own 'superiority' while regurgitating BAD (really bad) OLD and INCORRECT orthodoxy assumptions/models and interpretations, that they failed to notice where they were going WRONG from the get-go! Da Schneib, it is your studied self-inflicted ignorant, arrogant disregard for ALL the new info that makes you so silly pretending to be in any way objective or informed in the NEW state of affairs in astrophysics/cosmology. Learn, DS.

@RC, you have lied here for your own personal self-aggrandizement, and are trying to distract from it. You are dishonest, @RC. You are dishonorable, @RC. You are lying again, @RC. Sniff the widdle, puppy. Sorry folks but this is the only way they learn. Otherwise they'll widdle on the carpet and you get to clean it up over and over again.

You've tried that tactics before, DS. You came a cropper every time, when you finally found you had been wrong all along and me correct, while you insulted etc like above. You don't read, yet post totally non sequitur comments and attempts to save face and pretend it's me not you behind the times re the new mainstream state of affairs re astrophysics, cosmology and even quantum physics. Boast about not reading, then open your big self-created ignorant mouth. The Stump Method (TL ;DR, plus insults in ignorance) is 'strong in you', DS. Poor sod.

@RC, you have no real research to point to. You've been challenged to provide it and have nothing but your process BS. You don't understand the meaning of A = A; how can you pretend to understand galaxy clusters, cosmic voids, the filamentary structure of the universe, dark matter, and dark energy? Why would you think anyone would believe you if you don't get A = A?

@RC, you have no real research to point to. You've been challenged to provide it and have nothing but your process BS.

I have been posting on it for years now. You and your gang buddies have been so arrogant and insulting and intentionally IGNORING and NOT READING it; instead employing the STUMPY METHOD FOR NOT informing yourselves all along. That is why there have been so many instances where you attacked me but then found that you were wrong and me correct all along. You never learn, DS; thanks to your 'convenient amnesia' about your wrongheadedness while insulting. Your forgetful-ego allows you to delude yourself that Bicep2 fiasco 'never happened'; and that Prof Paul Steinhardt 'never admitted' INFLATION had been unscientifically 'built into the literature' for decades!

Your forgetful-ego allows you to delude yourself that ...Prof Paul Steinhardt 'never admitted' INFLATION had been unscientifically 'built into the literature' for decades!

I cannot parse this sentence. So perhaps you could tell us how does Penrose feel about this, O Mightly Maharishi? Just wondering. :)

If you're looking for a Maharishi, you've come to the wrong site, Seeker2. I'm a objective observer using the Scientific Method not Religion or Philosophy.

Re "what Sir Roger Penrose thinks": Have you yet encountered his 'change of opinion' re the question, "What came before the big bang?" He finally had to admit it WAS a valid question to anyone hypothesizing an abstraction like a Big Bang scenario 'beginning'. He/other mainstream cosmologists who promulgated BB used to dismiss that question as 'meaningless because there was no before'. He has since admitted that was a WEASELY EVASION.

Still waiting for @RC to post these supposed research results being published that prove there aren't any cosmic voids.

>crickets

Keep twisting and denying, DS. That's all you've been doing. Just like all those times before when you were wrong yet attacked and insulted in ignorance, only to eventually find you WERE ignorant and not up to speed with the reality under your nose which even mainstream are slowly, finally, discovering/reviewing and confirming me correct on many fronts. While you play your STUMP METHOD games of ignoring, denying and insulting while being all-kinds-of-WRONG. Do you ever listen and learn, DS; or is your ego so tied up with the 'games' you play that you cannot 'afford' to lose else your whole ego-tripping 'house of cards' comes crashing down around your deaf ears? Seems like it, judging from the resort to ignore, deny, insult tactics of longstanding.

DS, take a long break. Catch up on your CORRECT reading/understanding. Learn.

You tried that tactic before, DS; too many times now; it failed every time; because you attacked/insulted while being wrong all along. Have you 'forgotten' those instances, DS? Easy, to do that, for someone who has 'convenient amnesia' and a big insulting mouth to go with it...and a 'talent' for being wrong as he insults those who know/understand more than you.

Learn, DS.

Take a break and read up on the correct science/logics and REAL things instead of being lost in your abstracts-parroting old-orthodoxy regurgitator's 'world' where reality never intrudes. Take care, DS.

RealityCheck

@RC, you lied. You know you lied. There is no place to hide. Everyone can see it, and they will because I'll be including the link to it in every response I make to you from now on. The more you post, the more people will see it.

RealityCheck

The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

Challenged multiple times to produce links to this supposed research, @RC has so far failed to show such links, show such research, or admit it doesn't exist.

You missed it all, intentionally, while you boasted about not reading or even trying to get up to date with recent mainstream discovery/reviews. Your tactics are stale and failed many times before. Remember? I am not responsible for your own negligence and self-inflicted ignorance, DS. Stop digging, DS.

The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

Re "what Sir Roger Penrose thinks": Have you yet encountered his 'change of opinion' re the question, "What came before the big bang?" He finally had to admit it WAS a valid question to anyone hypothesizing an abstraction like a Big Bang scenario 'beginning'. He/other mainstream cosmologists who promulgated BB used to dismiss that question as 'meaningless because there was no before'. He has since admitted that was a WEASELY EVASION.

So we all admit there was something before the BB. And somehow this implies no inflation?

The point was to demonstrate a 'timeline' of how BB and related hypotheses/fixes are being falsified/denied, albeit ever so slowly, by the very people who were instrumental in the early days of establishing such UNreal things into the literature for so long. First came the admission that BB was NOT a 'beginning'; and hence became just another hypothesized stage in an ETERNAL and INFINITE universal process. That was the first mainstream recognition that REALITY explanations require more than just those old abstract philosophical/metaphysical notions/maths. Then came Prof Paul Steinhardt's admission that INFLATION (a previously 'necessary' fix to make BB 'fit' with observed 'flatness' of space on the cosmic scale) was also NOT a REAL thing, but an equally abstract philosophical/metaphysical notion/maths without a shred of tenable scientific support for it; yet was built into all BB-related and CMB/DM/DE type 'explanations' just as UNREAL as what went before. Ok?

The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

...INFLATION (a previously 'necessary' fix to make BB 'fit' with observed 'flatness' of space on the cosmic scale) was also NOT a REAL thing, but an equally abstract philosophical/metaphysical notion/maths without a shred of tenable scientific support for it; yet was built into all BB-related and CMB/DM/DE type 'explanations' just as UNREAL as what went before. Ok?

So what went before was unreal. What would that be? What should it be, if anything?

(and before you bring up your singular point to imfrimcanada, a single point without substantiation or references is still just a claim based upon your beliefs - http://www.auburn...ion.html )

Hell, you can't even validate your claims in the above thread!

"Keep twisting and denying, rc. That's all you've been doing. Just like all those times before when you were wrong yet attacked and insulted in ignorance, only to eventually find you WERE ignorant and not up to speed with the reality under your nose" [sic]

What it comes down to with the Big Bang is that it's necessary to explain the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and is the inevitable consequence of running the expansion of the universe backward.

The CMB is very uniform, which it could not be if it were not all generated at the same time. In order for the CMB to exist and have the character it does, there must have been a period of time in the past when the universe was radiation dominated; today it's matter dominated. The CMB comes from the time when it switched.

If we run the expansion of the universe backward, we can see that there was indeed such a time, so the CMB is explained (and was the first hard evidence of the Big Bang). We can also see that at a time about 13.6 billion years ago the density had to keep climbing to the point where we exceed the energies where we understand what physics says about what will happen. [contd]

[contd]That time, 13.6 billion years ago, was when the Big Bang happened.

Cosmic inflation (according to current ΛCDM theory, the Standard Model of Cosmology) occurred before the Big Bang. In this theory, the universe starts as a vacuum fluctuation in an unknown pre-existing background space of unknown character. The only requirements for it are that it be capable of having vacuum fluctuations, and that those fluctuations be capable of having a cosmological constant. Whether it has time or not is unknown and may be unknowable; all our universe has come from that vacuum fluctuation, and only the cosmological constant of that fluctuation gives us any clue to the properties of that background.

This particular vacuum fluctuation had a high negative cosmological constant. It's conjectured that other fluctuations could occur that didn't; they would result in universes very different from ours. [contd]

[contd]Relativity says that a space with a high enough cosmological constant would expand exponentially; that is, it would grow from the size of a quantum fluctuation to tens of billions of light years in an extremely short fraction of a second. The high cosmological constant, however, is unstable, and eventually decays (and that also happens in a very short fraction of a second, but not as fast as the expansion). This exponential expansion is cosmic inflation.

When the cosmological constant decays (a process called vacuum decay), all of its energy has to go somewhere; and it does. It's dumped into the space that's created by the inflation. This is the Big Bang, where the energy dumped from the inflaton (which is the name for the cosmological constant) appears in the universe.

[contd]As with the original high cosmological constant potentially being different from the one in the vacuum fluctuation that created our universe, also, the amount of inflation that had occurred before the vacuum decay could also differ in other universes, and this would mean that other universes different from ours could form this way too. The vacuum decay occurs at a random time; much later or much earlier than ours did, and you get another, different universe.

People who hear about the Big Bang tend to visualize it as an event happening at a single point; this is incorrect. It happened all over all of space, at a particular time (according to the meaning of "time" in our universe). By the time the Big Bang occurred, space (in our universe) was already at least 40 billion light years across. [contd]

[contd]We know this because we can see it; if it weren't so then we'd be able to see galaxies that obey different physical laws, and their spectra would contain anomalous spectral lines. No such anomalous spectral lines have ever been detected. Ane we'd see them if they were there; we have spectra for literally millions of galaxies, and spectra of very distant galaxies are very carefully examined. They're the most interesting ones.

So to recap, what we know has to have happened (because we can see it both in telescopes and by measuring the CMB) isvacuum fluctuation -> inflation -> vacuum decay -> Big Bang -> our universe

This is the ΛCDM theory.

Readers should note that the Wikipedia articles on this subject do not represent the consensus view of ΛCDM but instead present an alternative view where inflation occurs after the Big Bang. This is not the consensus view.

Big Bang deniers (and inflation deniers too) generally misrepresent this theory in various creative ways in order to pretend there is uncertainty of some sort (this is called FUD). However, the evidence supporting this theory is very strong, and includes not only the existence of the CMB and the retrodiction of the Big Bang from universal expansion, but many other pieces of data including galaxy spectra, small deviations in the uniformity of the CMB, and our growing (and already extensive) understanding of particle physics.

Ultimately such denials either use philosophy (which is capable of "proving" that nothing exists) or deliberate misrepresentations of the data (indicating either dishonesty or incompetence).

...INFLATION (a previously 'necessary' fix to make BB 'fit' with observed 'flatness' of space on the cosmic scale) was also NOT a REAL thing, but an equally abstract philosophical/metaphysical notion/maths without a shred of tenable scientific support for it; yet was built into all BB-related and CMB/DM/DE type 'explanations' just as UNREAL as what went before. Ok?

So what went before was unreal. What would that be? What should it be, if anything?

You misunderstand, Seeker2. Read it again, parsing better if you can. It is the BB-related and subsequent CMB/DM/DE 'explanations' which were all unreal due to the pseudoscience nature of the hypotheses on which these so-called 'explanations' were based. As Penrose and Steinhardt have finally admitted. Remember?

And since the BB is a furphie admitted by those that promulgated it in the early years, then there is no need to ask what came before BB, since BB never happened! Reality was always there. Ok?

Why keep regurgitating what can be 'read off' wiki? That's all OLD now. Keep up with new mainstream astro/cosmo discoveries/reviews.

You keep sounding like all those other HACK 'science writers' regurgitating behind-the-times crapola being falsified by mainstream itself even as those hacks write!

It is apparent you do NOT keep up to date, DS; because you keep 'believing' in INFLATION and other crocks DESPITE Prof Paul Steinhardt's ADMISSION that INFLATION has NO tenable scientific support; NEVER HAD for the DECADES it has been built into the literature as 'accepted, scientific'. It NEVER WAS such.

As for the rest of your BB 'spiel', it's all conjecture; especially the now FALSIFIED OLD claims that: "only BB/Inflation can explain CMB".

DS, seek help/cure for your PARROTING SYNDROME; it's painful as well as embarrassing to watch you regurgitate so much.

The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

@RC you're still playing process games. There aren't any more process games to play. You lied. All you have to do is produce the links. No links = you lied. Perhaps that's an equation you can figure out.

The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

It's all in your head, DS. You have been constructing your own 'version' of the reality of what has transpired over years now. If you keep this up in the face of such overwhelming evidence of your failure to keep up, then you are irretrievably lost to reason, DS. Not good. Get up to date with the actual real stuff mainstream is recently discovering/reviewing. Do it, CS. Stop using those old tactics; they failed you for too long now. Time to face the reality as it is not as you believed it to be based on old BB etc unrealities. Learn. Get up to speed on reality.

..then there is no need to ask what came before BB, since BB never happened! Reality was always there. Ok?

So in reality what happened 13.8 billion years ago. Anything significant?

Who is it that claims "something happened 13.8 billion years ago", Seeker2.?

Not me!

Ask the hypothesizers of 'unreal events' to scientifically support their claims that something happened 13.8 billion years ago. But be careful; the 'assumptions and explanations' so far have been increasingly found to be based on philosophical/metaphysical 'notions' having no real scientific basis for support (especially recall Penrose and Steinhardt's recent backpedalling re BB and Inflation 'unreal' claims).

In an Eternal Infinite universal extent/process there is NO 'beginnings' except for sub/local energy-space regions/processes. That is all we can observe and study at present. Further logical extensions based on real not unreal conjectures/extrapolations now needed. Ok?

You sure you want to be dragging him into this Cher? After his recent comments about you?

Have you missed what he said about Inflation? That is what counts on a science discourse site. Your Uncle Ira's 'imaginary dialogue in a bot-voting ignoramus's so-called mind' is neither here nor there.

In an Eternal Infinite universal extent/process there is NO 'beginnings'

I got to ask Cher. Since you have made such a big deal about it with DaSchneib-Skippy for a long time now. I thought you got some a toe that does away with Eternal/Infinite/Zeros/Infinites? Have you changed your mind about the Infinities you said doesn't exist (in the last 20 minutes)?

If you got "NO 'beginnings'", that makes your 1st Principle Infinity. Axiom your way out of that one Cher.

You can call me names if you want, it don't hurt my feelings none at all. But the Stienhardt-Skippy is not a bot-vote ignoramus, he is a real scientist like you are not. He also said your "insights"/"observations"/"gobbledygook" was demented. Demented was his word, not mine.

In an Eternal Infinite universal extent/process there is NO 'beginnings'

I thought you got some a toe that does away with Eternal/Infinite/Zeros/Infinites? Have you changed your mind about the Infinities you said doesn't exist (in the last 20 minutes)?

You missed the point of that exchange. His "infinity(s)" were ABSTRACT mathematical/philosophical/metaphysical 'objects'; not THE ACTUAL universal infinity of REALITY. There is no 'abstract substitute' for that ONE REAL INFINITY....ie THE UNIVERSE. Ok?

then there is no need to ask what came before BB, since BB never happened! Reality was always there. Ok?

So in reality what happened 13.8 billion years ago. Anything significant?

Who is it that claims "something happened 13.8 billion years ago"?

Not me!

Ask hypothesizers of 'unreal events' to scientifically support their claims 'something happened 13.8 billion years ago'. But be careful; the 'assumptions and explanations' so far have been increasingly found to be based on philosophical/metaphysical 'notions' having no real scientific basis for support (especially recall Penrose and Steinhardt's recent backpedalling re BB and Inflation 'unreal' claims).

In an Eternal Infinite universal extent/process there is NO 'beginnings' except for sub/local energy-space regions/processes. That is all we can observe and study at present. Further logical extensions based on real not unreal conjectures/extrapolations now needed. Ok?

You tell the GREAT BIG LIE Skippy. He is one of the nice scientists that actually answers email questions, even from couyons like me after he realized I was not just goofing around with him because I talk funny.

He does not say what you think he says about the cosmologists and astrophysicists. I asked him particular. I even showed him excerpts of your gobbledygook here about what he says. And he said he could not tell what in the world you were trying to say, that you sounded demented. AND he had great big fun like everybody else with your username.

You tell the GREAT BIG LIE Skippy. He is one of the nice scientists that actually answers email questions, even from couyons like me after he realized I was not just goofing around with him because I talk funny. .....I asked him particular. I even showed him excerpts of your gobbledygook here about what he says. And he said he could not tell what in the world you were trying to say, that you sounded demented.

He responded to incomplete version and your own misunderstandings/misrepresentations out of context (over YEARS). Your 'demented' and admitted bot-voting and ignorant claims is well known, Ira. Don't add to that bad rep by playing games with serious matters you have no comprehension of.

Steinhardt admitted to his peers: "Inflation NOT real/supported scientifically".

Well if believing that kind of stuffs gets you through your day, it's harmless enough. But just remember, it's all in your head and you are the only one that is enlightened enough to know it.

Anyhoo, I am going to watch two or one of my Leverage videos before I start my watch. Try not to be so disrespectful to the real scientists while you are fooling around on the physorg (I though you started the Earthman Club for playing scientist, is it closed for repairs?)

The fact is recorded history; of internet science forum posts I've made for years before Penrose/Steinhardt admitted the un-reality of what they had been proposing/promulgating for so long despite there being no actual objective scientifically tenable evidence for it all, only naive/simplistic/wrong assumptions/models/interpretations 'passed' by a BROKEN 'Peer Review' system.

Obviously; else they wouldn't have taken so long to SELF-CORRECT, would they?

So Ira... FACT: I was correct all along!

Being self-enlightened by one's own hard work often results in being correct, Ira.

I recently reminded of what mainstream researchers are finding out about the previous Supernovae assumptions, claims, models for estimating distances based on redshift etc. Mainstream is coming round to what I have been observing for years: redshift and SN 'distance ladder' techniques/extrapolations FLAWED; models circuitous; interpretations naive/wrong. Most telling admission being that nearby SN can be mistaken for distant SN because redshift values were assumed to increase with the distance; but not so! Basically, all previous SN/Redshift based models/interpretations (ie, so-called 'expansion' and 'accelerated expansion') are now highly suspect; and as such can no longer be treated as 'fact'.

The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

As for Steinhardt's objections to inflation, he is an iconoclast: that rare, valuable scientist who goes against the mainstream. He is not some demented goon who makes up lies and claims to be able to do physics when he is innumerate; in fact, Steinhardt is an accomplished mathematician, as all who are accomplished theorists must be.

It has been difficult for physicists to accept that quantum mechanics is only deterministic stochastically; it is difficult for Steinhardt to accept that cosmology may also be stochastic. This does not mean he is right; it does not mean he is wrong. Ultimately the physics community has had to accept that QM can only predict outcomes over an ensemble; for now, the cosmology community accepts the same for universes. [contd]

[contd]I disagree with Steinhardt; I think he's missed a very important point, which is that the universe we see is there for us to see it because it is not inimical to the formation of us. I think inflation is the one big idea that makes what we see actually work, and I think he makes a mistake not to accept it. But I do not think he is lying, I do not think he is trivially wrong, and I do not think he is incompetent or deluded. Answering his objections is important to gaining further understanding of cosmology, and his work is valuable because it asks the hard questions.

What I object to is you using him in your demented innumerate fantasies. Apparently he does as well. I'd stop using him as a stalking horse if I were you; @Ira may actually convince him to come on here and denounce you in person. It depends I suppose on how important he thinks it is, and I wouldn't care to predict that.

Congratulations to @Ira for actually contacting Steinhardt directly to ask whether @RC is lying or not; I can't imagine the real Steinhardt is pleased at being used as a stalking horse by a psychotic. I respect your persistence in convincing the man that you were not a crank, just trying to deal with one. It can't have been easy.

I'm thinking if the ladder techniques are unfit for measuring the Hubble constant, then you're saying no expansion. Right? So the number of red-shifted galaxies should pretty well match the number of blue-shifted galaxies. Right?

Actually you would have to look at the actual distribution of red/blue shifts.

The idea being for any given Hubble constant, calculate the expected distribution, and continue until you find the best match to the actual data. Assuming you can calculate an expected distribution for any given Hubble constant.

Congratulations to @Ira for actually contacting Steinhardt directly to ask whether @RC is lying or not; I can't imagine the real Steinhardt is pleased at being used as a stalking horse by a psychotic. I respect your persistence in convincing the man that you were not a crank, just trying to deal with one. It can't have been easy.

Yeah, Really-Skippy tried that before. A couple of years back he got into his head that he would impress people with throwing around Sean-Carrol-Skippy. He spent months trying to tell us that Carrol-Skippy finally got smart by reading Really-Skippy on the interweb.

Wow! The 'gang' of bot-voting ignpramuses is 'active' in their ignorance/lies based 'chatter'. Who would have thought that trolls ignorant of just about every important development/implication in the last ten years could be so 'certain' and 'loud' in attacking me, who has had to teach them what they missed all for years, while they were busy 'enjoying' gang-based bot-voting, trolling while being so irretrievably ignorant, malignant to science and scientific discourse?

Consider 'gang' in question....

Gangmember 1): Da Schneib; who until recently didn't know cosmic scale 'masering' features existed; or that plasmoids and flux tubes were part of sun's processes; or that Non-Keplerian matter/orbtal distributions/regimes existed in spiral galaxies; or that Carrol and Perlmutter agreed the universal extent is found to be flat-and-hence-infinite/eternal; or that Plasmonic surface/edge'slit/groove energy/processes are responsible for two-slit etc experiment results;

; missed all the recent astro/cosmo discoveries/reviews re ORDINARY matter etc; missed all the long-known philosophical/metaphysical 'notions' that infested current maths/physics axioms/postulates set, and math/physics theories which are based on same; is totally ignorant of even the most basic understanding of ALL THE OBVIOUS FLAWS in the current distance ladder and redshift 'methodologies/interpretations of observations and who keeps attacking and insulting while deluded he 'knows' anything worth knowing abut the actual real situation evolving right under his nose while he maintains the 'faith' and 'spiels' of increasingly falsified/questionable OLD 'orthodoxy' which the MAINTSREAM is gradually discarding as we speak! THAT is the one accusing me of lies, ignorance, whatever else comes into his eg-tripping, face-saving attempts to 'impress his admirers' among the bot-voting ignoramus 'gang' who rate his posts '5' regardless of how WRONG he is!

Gangmember 2): Captain Stumpy; inventor and main practitioner of "STUMP METHOD FOR IGNORING DENYING, INSULTING WHILE REMAINING CLUELESS", his 'personal' substitute for the scientific method; and which has now infected many other bot-voing trolling 'gang' members (including DS above).

Gangmember 3), 4), 5): Uncle Ira, tooty, lite; who have been most assiduous bot-account users to skew ratings/feedback metrics on this site; a self-demonstrable dead loss all round there!

Assorted Other 'members' of that 'gang': who have at various stages, various threads, condoned that 'gang' behavior, and enjoyed the '5' garnered from same, irrespective of being NOT up to date and just plain WRONG on many fronts!

Now THESE ask YOU to 'believe' their lies about me and my correct work/posts, over the years to date. They have been demonstrated wrong by mainstream, and myself, so many times now that it borders on 'mass delusion' for that 'gang' to persist in their malignancy.

As for Penrose/Steinhardt ADMISSIONS re Big Bang/Inflation: How can the PO bot-voting ignoramus 'gangmembers' STILL be in denial of the obvious/serious implications for OLD hypotheses/claims built into the literature for decades as 'fact'; and so infecting all subsequent 'exercises'/interpretations based on such WRONG notions and metaphysics 'passed by peer review' into the supposedly scientific literature?

And how can anyone STILL pretend there is any 'truth/authority' value in any of their/others' comments, about MY work/insights etc; by gangs and/or professionals who have ADMITTEDLY demonstrably failed for DECADES now, to substantiate scientifically their philosophical/metaphysical NOTIONS being now gradually falsified by newer mainstream discovery/review?

I'm thinking if the ladder techniques are unfit for measuring the Hubble constant, then you're saying no expansion. Right? So the number of red-shifted galaxies should pretty well match the number of blue-shifted galaxies. Right?

Let the above observations/facts in their combined context/implications tell you what to conclude, Seeker2. That's what objective observers would do. Recall too, that Hubble HIMSELF was 'uncomfortable' about the naive/simplistic application/extrapolation by OTHERS of his redshift data in the ABSENCE of ACTUAL knowledge of the LOCAL conditions AT the sources being observed. Recently I quoted to Da Schneib mainstream admission that Redshift data can LUMP together NEAR AND FAR SNs!

Gangmember 3), 4), 5): Uncle Ira, tooty, lite; who have been most assiduous bot-account users to skew ratings/feedback metrics on this site; a self-demonstrable dead loss all round there!

Why you not give me my own separate comment/section/paragraph/post like the DaSchnieb-Skippy and the Captain-Skippy. Why you crowd me in with the other two Skippys who don't even ever having anything to say?

Nuff said!

I hope you don't get upset or anything, but I for one do not believe that part. You always got something else to say, even if it is something you already said a 100 times already this month.

Note that DS has AVOIDED mention of that mainstream fact; so denies that it ever happened; so he can continue to lie, mislead, not only himself, but the rest of the 'gang' whose critical objective faculties have been 'wanting' for too long now; thanks to their pitiful adherence to the "Stump Method" for ignoring, denying, insulting and remaining blissfully ignorant while sabotaging/skewing discussion/metrics on this science site!

Anyhow, point: IF near/far SNs 'redshift' data can be SO 'mixed up'; how can BILLIONS of lightyears DISTANT 'galaxies/cluster' redshift data be 'reliable' enough to use for models/ladders etc; without ALSO knowing what INTRINSIC LOCAL VARIABLES may be effecting dust/gravitational etc-caused redshifting having NOTHING TO DO WITH DISTANCE OR EXPANSION CLAIMS?...as for the SNs case (mainstream studies admiting near-and-far SN 'redshift' due to LOCAL conditions/variables 'at source' (system mass/dust/dynamics history etc).

Gangmember 3), 4), 5): Uncle Ira, tooty, lite; who have been most assiduous bot-account users to skew ratings/feedback metrics on this site; a self-demonstrable dead loss all round there!

Why you not give me my own separate comment/section/paragraph/post like the DaSchnieb-Skippy and the Captain-Skippy. Why you crowd me in with the other two Skippys who don't even ever having anything to say?

Because what you've had to say is 'commensurate' (in terms of 'uselessness' to science/humanity) with what they've have had to say, i: not anything of value except to fellow bot-voting ignoramuses doing bot-voting here and skewing the PO metrics.

You tell the GREAT BIG LIE again Skippy. I did not ALSO SABOTAGE anything. Maybe your computer is acting up, or maybe you don't know how to use him, but that is something I did not have anything to do with.

I would rather be a bot-voter than a bot-gobbledygooker like you. Or a bot-liar like you.

You tell the GREAT BIG LIE again Skippy. I did not ALSO SABOTAGE anything....I would rather be a bot-voter than a bot-gobbledygooker like you. Or a bot-liar like you.

And there it is again, folks; admission Ira would rather be bot-voting ignoramus than do/learn anything of value to science/humanity advance/discourse.

Wow! The bot-voting ignoramus, too often snookered into admitting his lack of proper comprehension of subtle/complex matters being discussed on a science site, summons up YET STRONGER levels of insensibility, by pretending to characterize what he doesn't comprehend: "gobbledegook"!

Well that did not hurt my feeling Cher. How can you expect me to understand your "gobbledygook" when nobody else in the whole wide world does not either, eh? Even your current favorite scientist Steinhardt-Skippy said your stuff was demented ramblings (that means gobbledygook in case you did not know that.)

And yet they are now finally agreeing with what I have been posting here and elsewhere for years now. So that makes your ignorant bot-voting impressions and opinions about what is correct and what is 'gobbledegook' yet more bot-voting ignoramus clutter, useless to both science/humanity advance/discourse. Shame on you, Ira.

...the universal extent is found to be flat-and-hence-infinite/eternal;...

So the universe is not folded back onto itself. Light just keeps going in straight lines forever and ever. This doesn't have anything to do with the universe being infinite because it hasn't been around forever and ever.

INTRINSIC LOCAL VARIABLES may be effecting dust/gravitational etc-caused redshifting having NOTHING TO DO WITH DISTANCE OR EXPANSION CLAIMS?

The old tired light table thumpers.

Careful, Seeker2; you have conflated two totally different scenarios/hypotheses:

1) The "Tired Light" hypotheses is about the alleged loss of ENERGY by the radiation traveling across space over cosmic scale distances; whereas

2) RECENT recognition of LOCAL CONDITIONS at SNs/Galaxies/cluster etc AT 'emitting source' is NOW a mainstream realization which mainstream studies/papers have been done/written, and reported on by PO 'news item'.

Redshift due to LOCAL conditions at SN locations/dynamics/constituents etc VARY more than previous 'standard candle' assumptions implied. I quoted relevant mainstream comment re that NEW finding to DS in earlier exchanges (which he still avoids the implications of for assumptions re redshift of cosmically distant sources).

...the universal extent is found to be flat-and-hence-infinite/eternal;...

So the universe is not folded back onto itself. Light just keeps going in straight lines forever and ever.

Eventually it must be 'recycled' via interactions with matter, wherein the energy may ionize atoms/molecules; promote chemical-type reactions to form organic and inorganic molecules (and in certain circumstances then dissociate/disintegrate same); and so on, as I already pointed out for Zerg's benefit.

This doesn't have anything to do with the universe being infinite because it hasn't been around forever and ever.

What objective, tenable, scientific evidence do you (or anyone else, including proponents of Big Bang type beginning/Expansion scenarios which have been lately admitted to be merely notional events in a universal phenomena set/process of infinite extent both in spatial and temporal terms) have for making such a declaration?

Like I describe the expectations that lead to reality? Really? How so?

Olbers's Paradox was NOT reality; since the 'expectation' on which it was based (ie, ALL light supposedly coming from infinity to 'here' would have been 'un-intercepted' and/or 'un-attenuated') was NOT reality; as I just pointed out why in my previous post.

PS: What do you mean by YOUR comment: "expectations that lead to reality", Seeker2; can you explain exactly what you meant by that please? Thanks.

@RC Yes I expect reality which is how I see Olber's paradox. Else we have to have some intervening objects which block out (intercept or attenuate or whatever you call it) 99.???% of radiation completely while allowing us to observe the remainder. Call it black magic physics. More like religion than science, actually.

contAnother miracle - I don't believe we observe any gray regions in the visible universe. It's all or nothing. Right there in black and white or whatever spectrum it happens to be. Like radiation, red shifted or not, or no radiation. No gray radiation.

An important point made by Lawrence Krauss - We live in an age when people can see back to the dark ages before there were any visible objects. When the universe starts expanding again faster than the speed of light, people will no longer be able to see back to the dark ages, and won't know where they came from. Note that in the dark ages there certainly was radiation but no visible objects. No black and white.

Yes I expect reality which is how I see Olber's paradox. Else we have to have some intervening objects which block out (intercept or attenuate or whatever you call it) 99.???% of radiation completely while allowing us to observe the remainder. Call it black magic physics. More like religion than science, actually.

Before you get carried away with abstract notions/unreal expectations, consider:

- Planck study found the dust even within our MW galaxy has a great effect on intensity/properties of light received by our telescopes/instruments;

- Some stars even within our MW galaxy are 'obscured' by the dusty 'birth nebulae' within and from which they formed, some stars were even invisible to us until better scopes came along;

- Extreme redshifting by bodies/processes we now know exist throughout our universe makes the observed 'light' so difficult to detect unless we have specialized instruments;

Extreme redshifting by bodies/processes we now know exist throughout our universe makes the observed 'light' so difficult to detect unless we have specialized instruments;

Extreme but limited by the time it's had to red shift from the dark ages. No limit about how much tired light would red shift after it's been around forever, however. Your specialized instruments would have to cover up to infinite wavelengths. Good luck.

@Seeker, you've discerned a very important point: if the universe were steady-state and there was no expansion, and it had existed forever, then infinite energy would pour in from every direction. The inevitable conclusion is that the universe either cannot have existed for infinite time or is not expanding. We can see it's expanding. Therefore Big Bang. Simple as that.

...if the universe were steady-state and there was no expansion, and it had existed forever, then infinite energy would pour in from every direction. The inevitable conclusion is that the universe either cannot have existed for infinite time or is not expanding. We can see it's expanding.

Your assertions are based on old assumptions now increasingly shown to have been naive/simplistic, and just plain wrong, by recent mainstream discovery/review which shows the universe if full of materials/processes at all scales/distances which effectively modify/attenuate etc the light from even near sources let alone from cosmically distant sources. Read what I have been pointing out for Seeker2, which effectively explains how and where your above assertions are old and obsolete/wrong, having no regard for the reality physics (recall that Planck confirmed even local attenuation by dust etc. Also, Penrose/Steinhartd admit NO scientific support for BB/Inflation/Expansion.

The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

I have zero apples right now, DS! So you are wrong on that as well, DS. :)

Abstract constructs are not the reality, DS; merely a repesentation in a number system/arithmetic conventions. Zero apples is an abstract computation, not the apples themselves (which may differ in mass and chemical proportions etc). Simplistic abstractions, DS. Understand yet?

Not to mention I'm arguing with a zero on the science site

That wasn't the point. You have had more than enough opportunities to realize the actual point. Why are you so stubborn, and also so nasty, when you are obviously wrong, DS?

Again:

Conventional unreal/abstractions based maths IS OK for treating/modeling such things as apple-counting etc.

It's NOT OK for treating/modeling a UNIVERSE...because conventional maths would treat/model Universes like Apples.

The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

Is it any wonder REAL scientists are getting a bad rep due to ego-tripping types kneejeking NON-readers taking it upon themselves to 'defend science', yet break every rule of Objective, Balanced Scientific Method, Discourse!

DS don't you realize that, by your REFUSAL to read/understand, you are 'providing ammunition' to those looking for examples to cite when accusing 'scientists' of being biased ego-tripping hacks, preferring their OWN UN-reality instead of actually looking to see the reality and others' objective arguments for what they are, not what you 'strawmans' them into so you can continue ignoring, denying, insulting in self-imposed ignorance?

...a person who not only can't count, but disparages counting.

Untrue. You wouldn't know that, since you have NOT READ my rebuttals to that strawman of yours.

@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? Oh yeah, I am just fine, thanks for asking.

Can you explain something for me about,,,,,

@Da Schneib.

I am mocking you without ever actually reading what you say.

And there it is again, folks! The Da Schneib BOAST of NOT reading!.

I usually read your all stuffs, they are great big fun for me. But not everybody has the time to fool around a lot like I have most days. If he only reads one or maybe two of your posts, out of, say, a 100,,, you got to admit Cher that he did not miss anything. You say the same stuffs over and over and over and over and never add anything that you have not already posted over and over and over and over before..

You been writing the exact same stuffs for years with nothing new. I know because I do read your stuffs, they are great big fun for me.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. Add in a few more overs up there just to keep it honest.

What does that matter, when you bot-vote and admit you don't understand any of it anyway? Hence why what you have chosen to do so far here is irrelevant/malignant to science/humanity advance/discourse.

You say the same stuffs over and over...and never add anything that you have not already posted over and over...

Would a self-condemned bot-voting ignoramus know/discern between what has been posted and any new additions to same? No.

You been writing the exact same stuffs for years...

You wouldn't know; since you're a demonstrable bot-voting ignoramus. And what I have been posting "for years", on many fronts, is being increasingly confirmed correct by mainstream, Ira. :)

Like energy just doesn't go poof bye bye when it gets absorbed. It re-radiates else its temperature skyrockets. Maybe a learning disability

Who said it "went bye bye". Not me!

Recall the CONVERSION aspect of matter-energy-matter cycles occurring at all scales! The CHEMICAL BONDING energies involved in making/breaking/changing complex organic/inorganic molecules/aggregations etc. Then there is the KINETIC energies of the impacted particles (protons, atoms, molecules etc, individually/en-masse' in nebulae/aggregates from/motions). Then think of all the 'intermediate state' products and excitations in which ordinary matter can be put into by light flux and energy-levels.

Anyhow, did you get the point re the local, intervening and receiving locality conditions which involve all that in even more severity when light travelled vast cosmic distances, affected at every step by all that 'attenuating', 'absorbing' etc stuff/processes I pointed out already? Cheers.

The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

Apparently you don't understand Olbers' Paradox. The universe cannot have been around forever, and @Seeker has proven it, and all you've got is more lies.

See? This is what happens when you become desperate to save face at all costs, even to the detriment of objective science discourse. Your objectivity and intellectual integrity/capacity is plummeting to new depths now, DS; since it's obvious Seeker2 has NOT "proven" any such thing as you claim.

That same light would then impact on a BH Event Horizon SOMEWHERE between 'infinity and here'! Since, by the same Olbers's logic/argument, light trajectories must ALL 'end' on some BH or other at some stage. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, yes?

So you see, DS, the same Olbers's Paradox contains obvious logical indications that it is NOT a paradox in reality. I already explained why.

The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

"Straight"?! You boast about refusing to read what is being posted; you refuse to update yourself on the known science and evolving mainstream discoveries/reviews which make your assertions/beliefs obsolete; yet you have the insensibility to claim I am the one lying instead of you lying in your self-imposed ignorance? Do you even 'listen to yourself' anymore, DS?

This is really simple: if the universe existed for infinite time, every point in it would be receiving infinite energy. They're not. QED.

NOT QED! That sort of naive/simplistic and just plain wrong yet arrogant kind of lazy thinking has infected the literature to the extent that Bicep2 can happen in the first place! And has allowed BB etc unscientific baloney to be 'passed by peer review' for decades before Penrose/Steinhardt began to blow the whistle on same.

@RC, you're trying to change the subject again. More lying. Explain why if the universe has existed for infinite time each point in it would not be receiving infinite energy. It's really quite simple, but all you can do is hand-wave.

The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

Explain why if the universe has existed for infinite time it would not be receiving infinite energy.

Already done, to Seeker2 and you too. Read my relevant posts in this thread to Seeker2 and you. I even gave you the corollary Olbers's logics/perspective re ALL light from infinite distance inevitably hitting a BH and hence never getting 'here' IF the Olbers's paradox logics and expectations are taken literally without considering what I have been pointing out to Seeker2 and you for some time now but you seem to have refused to read so far. Read all of it now, and only then respond. Ok? Thanks.

The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

@RC, you're lying again. Not already done, and neither of us thinks so. You've tried obfuscating, changing the subject, and claiming, but you have never actually

It's obvious that you either have not read it all; or that your reading confirmation bias is making you kneejerk to insult and mistakes, like many times before. If you are not going to bother actually reading/understanding fairly because you just want to satisfy your need to insult and accuse and misinform, then no amount of further explanation can get through to you, DS. A sad waste of time and intellect on your part, DS; spent on ego-tripping, trolling and gratuitous insults on the net.

Sad.

PS: Are you a sufferer of Tourette's Syndrome, DS; and all the obsessive-compulsive tendencies to irrational outbursts of offensive verbal ejaculations that can come with it? If so, you have my sincere sympathy; and my advice to not drink so much, especially on an empty stomach and/or when posting. Ok. :)

@RC, as usual you lie again, and try to change the subject again. You have not explained how a universe of infinite duration doesn't result in infinite energy being received at every point. This is not surprising, since you are innumerate and don't understand infinity.

The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

@Seeker, lots of good Woodie Guthrie out there. One of my favorites is "This Land Is Your Land." It's a pretty good response to "America the Beautiful's" Babble-thumping BS. It should get sung more often.

You have not explained how a universe of infinite duration doesn't result in infinite energy being received at every point.

Can you be MORE obtuse, DS?

UNREAL MATHS 'abstract infinity', and REAL PHYSICAL 'Universal Infinity', are NOT THE SAME in concept OR effect. Ok?

DS, you boast/pride yourself on NOT READING properly (or at all) ALL that I wrote; you are a delusional-ignorant-in-denial.

DS, you purposely missed ALL the important implications of what I have been pointing out; and you don't even understand what the universal energy-space ground state and excited states INHERENT energy budget/densities are locally/cosmically.

So all your 'kneejerking' and 'insulting' is from ignorance; hence NOT in any position to opine/accuse me of whatever your delusional ego-tripping 'unreality world' has you 'believing' based on your ignorance, delusion, malice.

If you can't be objective, dispassionate, respectful, you are no use to science/humanity discourse, DS.

About those BHs, @RC, don't they eventually evaporate, returning all their energy?

In every FINITE (causally-connected) expanse of the universal infinity, this occurs after epochal stages of locally evolving states/distributions of the energy-space share entrained in said finite expanses.

As I earlier explained, local region phenomena/processes involve 'energy-space recycling' within that region, through all the possible states and scales of energy/spatial intermediate (transient) and stable (persistent) forms we label particles/solitonic-waveforms etc. The evolutionary trajectory for any region is complex and persists cross shorter/longer time scales depending on the spatiotemporal scle of the selected region/location under study.

Re your BH question: Yes. Eventually.

BUT meanwhile, OTHER local/intervening-distance transformings/recyclings are happening at all the time; so 'entraining' a LOT of EM radiation-energy from 'very far away', as explained.

The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

@RC Great word bombs, I don't know about your science though. I was just wondering what could make you go nuclear. Is it that no self-respecting Atheist would believe in the Big Bang?

Nah. Just an Objective and resilient Atheist among some not-so-objective nasty Atheists/Religionists who seem to think a science site is fair game for trolls and malicious actors. So, I was merely RESPONDING to and DEFENDING against unprovoked attacks based on self-inflicted ignorance, denial and malignant states due to the attacker(s) boasting of not reading what is being posted and refusing to get himself up to speed with recent mainstream discovery/review which increasingly confirm me correct all along and him woefully left behind by his own own hand, preferring to insult instead of learning. I have tried reasoning and explaining what they obviously missed in their un-reasoning rampages through PO discussions; but its a thankless task since they keep attacking while ignorant.

I was just wondering what could make you go nuclear. Is it that no self-respecting Atheist would believe in the Big Bang?

It's more a matter of reminding ourselves that:

No objective scientist (Irrespective of their personal beliefs/philosophy/politics etc) would just 'believe' in patently abstract mathematical/metaphysical/philosophical UNREALITY NOTIONS having no actual objective scientific support for them whatsoever as a scientific hypothesis let alone theory.

By the way, Seeker2, speaking of my/your science; can you please indicate whether or not you understand the important conceptual/effectiveness distinction which all good mathematicians and physicists make between..

@RC,,,what could make you go nuclear. Is it that no self-respecting Atheist would believe in the Big Bang?

Nah. Just an Objective and resilient Atheist among some not-so-objective nasty Atheists/Religionists who seem to think a science site is fair game for trolls and malicious actors.

So you're ok with an objective or maybe an Objective and resilient Atheist believing in the BB provided he's in with those other undesirable Atheists/Religionists. But not ok if he isn't in with those other undesirables. I assume you're in with those undesirables, so the BB is ok with you. Glad to hear it but sorry about being in with those undesirables. Bottom line is you're really open minded. Good.

The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

what could make you go nuclear. Is it that no self-respecting Atheist would believe in the Big Bang?

Nah. Just an Objective and resilient Atheist among some not-so-objective nasty Atheists/Religionists who seem to think a science site is fair game for trolls and malicious actors.

So you're ok with an objective or maybe an Objective and resilient Atheist believing in the BB provided he's in with those other undesirable Atheists/Religionists. But not ok if he isn't in with those other undesirables. I assume you're in with those undesirables, so the BB is ok with you. Glad to hear it but sorry about being in with those undesirables. Bottom line is you're really open minded. Good.

Your own self-categorization is your business, Seeker2. The only relevant consideration on a scientific site/discussion should be (whatever you self-identify as re personal philosophy etc) the scientific objectivity you can bring to the observations/discourse. That's it.

The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

Note how the most fuzzy stuff is emphasized. All in the cause of objectivity, I suppose.

Your own self-categorization is your business, Seeker2. The only relevant consideration on a scientific site/discussion should be (whatever you self-identify as re personal philosophy etc) the scientific objectivity you can bring to the observations/discourse. That's it

@Seeker, I cannot agree that @RC is in any way open-minded. @RC has a weird, idiosyncratic, and apparently unreal and non-physical conception of math that denies obvious features of reality. @RC will lie and has lied in order to defend this mashup, and furthermore protects it from contradiction by concealing it. This has nothing to do with open-mindedness, and everything to do with protection of a psychotic delusion or deliberate lie from criticism. People who are open-minded are open; people who are not open are not open-minded. This concealment and claims that are not substantiated due to concealment is denial of a basic principle of science: open methods and open results.

No one who knows anything about science could ever confuse or confound @RC with a scientist. It's a crank, and it doesn't matter whether it's having psychotic delusions or lying in order to sow FUD.

@RC, you didn't show anything that is provably infinite. You're just lying again, like you always do.

Who said I needed to, DS? You? I don't have to do any such thing. :)

DS, did you read my response invoking Occam's Razor Infinite/Eternal starting point for theorizing Universal nature and extent; and which requires LEAST number of assumptions; and hence the ONUS being on YOU to show otherwise if you claim different?

If not, please go back and read my relevant post to you 15 hours ago. Then see why your attack is misconceived and against the wrong person.

The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

Did you even bother to read and understand the SCIENCE application of OCCAM"S RAZOR; and why all cosmological theory starts with that perspective because it STARTS with the least number of assumptions? It's known as "The Law Of Parsimony":

you claimed there is some sort of real infinite something-or-other out there, but you can't give any examples of it. You lied again.

It's called THE REAL PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, DS. That's what Occams Razor says; and it says the real physical universe all around you is infinite/eternal, DS. That perspective requires the least assumptions.

So, DS, the ONUS is actually ON YOU (and all who would propose otherwise) to PROVE it isn't real, infinite/eternal. Got that?

The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

You're only spamming your ignorance, heedless of the damage you are doing to your psyche, DS. Stop!

@DS I think I know who we're dealing with. Has some technical/military experience but no physics beyond high school I know of. Correct me if I'm wrong about that, @RC. Doctor's degree in education. Known hacker unfortunately. Family member. Sort of scary in a way.

@DS I think I know who we're dealing with. Has some technical/military experience but no physics beyond high school I know of. Correct me if I'm wrong about that, @RC. Doctor's degree in education. Known hacker unfortunately. Family member. Sort of scary in a way.

A true 'seeker' wouldn't make wildly erroneous speculations like that about anyone or anything. Ignorance is no substitute for knowledge gained by dint of hard cogitation and observation and then more hard cogitation----ON THE OBJECTIVE FACTS. If you haven't the objective facts then SEEK them out honestly or if you can't get them don't 'invent' them; and don't just 'believe' in your/others' 'make-believe'----otherwise known of late as "alternative facts"; as used by many political parties in America, but especially the Republican-Trump camps. Good luck being another Trump-like "alternative facts" guy, (NON true) Seeker2! :)

Did you even bother to read and understand the SCIENCE application of OCCAM"S RAZOR; and why all cosmological theory starts with that perspective because it STARTS with the least number of assumptions? It's known as "The Law Of Parsimony":

@RC@DS I think I know who we're dealing with. Has some technical/military experience but no physics beyond high school I know of. Correct me if I'm wrong about that, @RC. Doctor's degree in education. Known hacker unfortunately. Family member. Sort of scary in a way.

A true 'seeker' wouldn't make wildly erroneous speculations like that about anyone or anything.

So no doctorate in education? Some physics beyond high school? My apologies for such wild and erroneous speculation. A true 'seeker' would at least ask, wouldn't he? I think a true 'seeker' should also ask if there was any physics in high school. Call it wild speculation if you wish.

Did you even bother to read and understand the SCIENCE application of OCCAM"S RAZOR; and why all cosmological theory starts with that perspective because it STARTS with the least number of assumptions? It's known as "The Law Of Parsimony":

You seem confused, Seeker2. It was the Occams Razor hypothesis, not mine, which starts it. The only "competing hypotheses" to that come from the BB etc unreal/metaphysical 'notions' which you/DS et al have 'believed in' for decades despite them having no tenable scientific support from the get-go (as Penrose/Steinhardt recently admitted).

to @DS: I think I know who we're dealing with. Has some technical/military experience but no physics beyond high school I know of. Correct me if I'm wrong about that, @RC. Doctor's degree in education. Known hacker unfortunately. Family member. Sort of scary in a way.

A true 'seeker' wouldn't make wildly erroneous speculations like that about anyone or anything.

So no doctorate in education? My apologies for such wild and erroneous speculation. A true 'seeker' would at least ask, wouldn't he?

He could. But in a SCIENCE discussion, the PERSON is irrelevant; the objective facts and the scientific method for drawing objective conclusions from same is all that matters.

Who was it?-----that originally wrote:

l'homme cest rien; l'ouvre cest tout.

Rough translation: "The man is nothing; the work everything."

So it is especially in science method practice and scientific discourse on the objective reality. Cheers. :)

The Occams Razor (Law of Parsimony) indicates the starting hypothesis with the LEAST number of assumptions. Any other hypothesis proposed by anyone which has MORE than those Occams Razor approach assumptions needs to prove how it is superior to the one with less assumptions; by supporting the extra assumptions with objective tenable logical/scientific evidence. So far, no other hypothesis (BB etc etc) has such tenable scientific/logical evidence to support all its extra-to-Occams Razor number of assumptions. Ergo, Occams Razor approach starting hypothesis still standing unchallenged. Cheers.

You're right. What really worries me is the work. Or perhaps the man with no science training expounding on his theory of science. Might give one pause.

Why worry? You are obviously not in any position to comprehend the full import of the work; let alone know the complete work before I do publish it complete. Until then, stop worrying, just relax, listen and learn as best you can. It will help you greatly in your 'seeking', and lead you more surely and closer to 'finding', if you spend less of your remaining time and intellect in composing cheap shots and evasive excuses to remain ignorant; or in misconstruing what is being told you for YOUR benefit as well as others in the wider science and humanity discourse here and elsewhere. Good luck. :)

Why worry? You are obviously not in any position to comprehend the full import of the work; let alone know the complete work before I do publish it complete.

I appreciate all the effort you put into your doctorate. I know you can do it. But with no science training you may just be in over your head. But you do have guts. Have to give you credit for that. It's all in the family I guess.

The Occams Razor (Law of Parsimony) indicates the starting hypothesis with the LEAST number of assumptions.

Basically leaving out two words - principle and competing. One more time please. You need COMPETING hypotheses. Sorry to have to raise my voice. :(

Not at all. You nee an observation (look around you and note the universe stretching out in all directions. Then apply Occams Razor "principle" and hey presto!, out comes the infinite/eternal hypothesis, having the least number of assumptions, practically unbidden (to the scientific mind, that is; to the religious/superstitious mind anything may come to mind!). All else is additional assumptions-laden speculation trying to form an hypothesis to compete/replace the Occams Razor principle-indicated hypothesis. So far, as Penrose/Steinhardt have admitted, the BB etc etc hypotheses haven't even 'competed' with let alone 'replaced' the Occams Razor indicated hypothesis. Too bad. C'est la vie in science! :)

Why worry? You are obviously not in any position to comprehend the full import of the work; let alone know the complete work before I do publish it complete.

I appreciate all the effort you put into your doctorate. I know you can do it. But with no science training you may just be in over your head.

There you go 'fishing' again. :) As for you opining about my science training, you seem to be ill equipped on that front, as well as the maths/logics front. So you'll forgive me if I take your baiting 'fishing' and ill-informed 'opining' as just so much NON-seeker nonsense from an anonymous poster on the internet who has indicated he/she is more interested in cheap shots and his own well-cultivated ongoing ignorance than he is in either me or the science/logics being discussed. Good luck with that, mate; you'll need it if you are going to pretend you are 'seeking' anything except your own ego-tripping satisfaction 'needs' on the internet. That's sad, Seeker2.

You nee an observation (look around you and note the universe stretching out in all directions. Then apply Occams Razor "principle" and hey presto!, out comes the infinite/eternal hypothesis,...

Stretching? Yes. Infinite/eternal? At least in your imagination, I guess. Sorry friends. Just a little family dispute here.

It's a well known figure of speech indicating 'extending along all radials from any and all locations'. Your reading confirmation bias immediately 'read' it to mean 'expanding universe', didn't it? See how easy it is for you to miss the objective extant reality because you immediately jump to your own 'preferred personal reality' due to your deeply inculcated/cultivated confirmation bias? Seeker2, if you really are on a 'seeking' quest for the objective extant reality, then first try hard, very hard, to disperse that heavy confirmation biased 'fog' which is demonstrably enshrouding your intellect at present. Good luck. :)

As for you opining about my science training, you seem to be ill equipped on that front, as well as the maths/logics front...That's sad, Seeker2.

Sure is. Any particular problem with my science training?

If you are so blithely unaware of the many problems which your responses so far have indicated, then you'll need a whole remedial course just to get you to 'switch across' from your present 'track' and onto the true and correct science/logics square one! Maybe then you can start again with an objective and logical approach instead of the emotional and subjective approach which you seem to have suffering from to date. :) OBTW I must admit I did take logic and missed one point during the whole course. Can't all be perfect I guess. It's not whether you're 'perfect' or not; it's whether you are even trying to apply what you HAVE learned to the best of your ability; objectively/honestly, instead of squandering those precious opportunities you've had. :)

Oh and about the maths. I took differential equations but was dismissed from class along with another person during the remedial counseling sessions after one of the tests.

Never mind, Seeker2. It's never too late to learn anew or to remediate any incorrect learning, for that matter. The point is to try your best for the sake of your intellect, opportunities and science/humanity in general. Once you can say you've done your best, no-one can take that away from you. Best regards and best wishes for your true 'seeking' quest, Seeker2. Cheers. :)

It's not whether you're 'perfect' or not; it's whether you are even trying to apply what you HAVE learned to the best of your ability; objectively/honestly, instead of squandering those precious opportunities you've had. :)

@RCStretching? Yes. Infinite/eternal? At least in your imagination, I guess. Sorry friends. Just a little family dispute here.

It's a well known figure of speech indicating 'extending along all radials from any and all locations'. Your reading confirmation bias immediately 'read' it to mean 'expanding universe', didn't it?

No it meant extending. Your imagination out of control again?

So you 'read' it as "extending", as I intended it as? Then great. No problem. My apologies if I misunderstood your two-word response: "Stretching? Yes.". So, Seeker2, does that mean you now agree that the Universe is NOT 'expanding' etc as per BB/INFLATION etc hypothesis claimed; which is now admitted by Penrose/Steinhardt to having never been supported by scientific evidence at all?

It's not whether you're 'perfect' or not; it's whether you are even trying to apply what you HAVE learned to the best of your ability; objectively/honestly, instead of squandering those precious opportunities you've had. :)

Very good. Now read what you just wrote.

The point of writing it was for you to read it and understanding how it was meant. If you are (as is obvious so far) not YET doing your best to honestly/objectively listen and learn, then you should read it and reconsider your approach so far; instead of making cheap one liners.

"Stretching? Yes.". So, Seeker2, does that mean you now agree that the Universe is NOT 'expanding' etc as per BB/INFLATION etc hypothesis claimed; which is now admitted by Penrose/Steinhardt to having never been supported by scientific evidence at all?

"Stretching? Yes.". So, Seeker2, does that mean you now agree that the Universe is NOT 'expanding' etc as per BB/INFLATION etc hypothesis claimed; which is now admitted by Penrose/Steinhardt to having never been supported by scientific evidence at all?

So you mean stretching is not expanding?

Careful, not to get yourself confused again, Seeker2. That "Stretching? Yes" was YOUR words in YOUR initial response to me. Your later said you agreed that I meant that figure of speech "Stretching in all directions" as in "Extending in all directions".

The point is: Universe is NOT expanding. BB/Inflation has been admitted to have had NO scientific evidence at all to support it since it was proposed as hypothesis. Ok now?

...you should read it and reconsider your approach so far; instead of making cheap one liners.

Why belabor the point?

What point is that, exactly, Seeker2?

Apparently my approach so far. Exactly.

Your approach so far consists of, exactly:

- posting one liner cheap shots and self-confused responses; and

- refusing to learn anything objectively that would logically/scientifically require you abandon your preconceived 'beliefs' in patently unscientific notions (BB, Inflation etc) which even their earliest proponents/promulgators now admit never had any tenable scientific/logical support from the get-go.

Sounds like a cheap shot to me. Other than that you're right about learning anything objectively that would require me to give up more plausible 'beliefs'.

What cheap shot, Seeker2? I expressly pointed out what your behavior/posts have come across as so far. If you disagree then it's up to you to demonstrate otherwise.

However, be aware that you won't be able to do that convincingly if you STILL harbor the 'beliefs' that BB, Inflation etc-----already admitted by Penrose/Steinhardt to having never had any tenable scientific/logical supporting evidence at all-----are 'plausible', despite their admission.

Or was it some OTHER 'beliefs' of yours you are alluding to as being 'plausible', Seeker2?

However, be aware that you won't be able to do that convincingly if you STILL harbor the 'beliefs' that BB, Inflation etc-----already admitted by Penrose/Steinhardt to having never had any tenable scientific/logical supporting evidence at all-----are 'plausible', despite their admission.

Or was it some OTHER 'beliefs' of yours you are alluding to as being 'plausible', Seeker2?

Surely Penrose/Steinhardt must have something better to offer than that snake oil stuff you're trying to push with Occam's razor.

@RC Here's a site to broaden your perspective, perhaps:https://phys.org/...nwletter" The observed 'enhanced production of strange particles' is a familiar feature of quark-gluon plasma, a very hot and dense state of matter that existed just a few millionths of a second after the Big Bang, and is commonly created in collisions of heavy nuclei."

The new discoveries of ORDINARY matter in HUGE quantities EVERYWHERE and in all sorts of states and all sorts of scales/distributions, implies that NO 'dark Energy' OR 'exotic dark matter' are needed AT ALL to explain motions/lensings observed.

That's Occamas Razor starting point for all scientific/logical theorizing, Seeker2. The "snake oil" entered the cosmology field when BB/Inflation etc was introduced into the science literature/discourse, and 'passed by peer review' for decades before finally lately being ADMITTED as "snake oil" by Penrose/Steinhardt, two of the earliest proponents/promulgators of that "snake oil". So you haven't even come close to making a cogent point/argument against that fact of BB/Inflation etc being BGUS all along, Seeker2.

So what, Seeker2? I have long pointed out to DS etc that Quark-Gluon Plasma states/material is ALWAYS being produced NOW all across space everywhere at various scales via extremely-high-energy processes like AGN/BH/Novae etc Polar jets).

You still nor reading before insensibly spamming your ignorance and malice again, DS?

READ. The Occams Razor indicated scientific/logical perspective of "infinite/eternal universe" is the starting point for cosmology theorizing process. The onus is upon you/others, who would disagree with that starting premise, to provide scientifically/logically tenable real evidence in support of YOUR BB etc counterviews to Occams Razor view. But be sure to provide more tenable evidence in support than Penrose/Steinhardt finally admitted existed for BB/Inflation etc (ie NO tenable scientific/logical support at all since first proposed).

@Da Schneib, if you again spam your ignorance as above, then you will have confirmed for all the forum to see that you are NOT READING but SPAMMING in ignorance from your own preconceived ego-tripping trolling agendas. Good luck with that, DS.

You keep misreading/misunderstanding what is being explained to you. The Occams Razor principles are what indicates the starting point view insofar as scientific/logical thinking/theorizing about the nature, origins and mechanics of the universe we observe around us in all directions without any obvious physical limits in spatial or temporal terms. Do you understand where you are conflating the principles with the view they indicate should be the starting point for cosmological theorizing which requires the least number of assumptions? If you are still confused, maybe you are too busy wanting it your way rather than just listening and reading further and learning how and why your way may be not as based in reality or least assumptions as possible. I suggest you read back over our exchange and see what you may have misconstrued in your eagerness to ignore/deny and otherwise decry any objective observations/implications/discoveries which threatens your 'beliefs'. Ok?

I have long pointed out to DS etc that Quark-Gluon Plasma states/material is ALWAYS being produced NOW all across space everywhere at various scales via extremely-high-energy processes like AGN/BH/Novae etc Polar jets).

No BB needed. :)

Except to produce the polar jets. Oh I forgot. Those polar jets have been around forever and ever. They were begotten, not made, just like the Holy Spirit. Right?. OBTW real particle/antiparticle pairs are produced with lightning ALWAYS being produced NOW all across space everywhere. Well at least during thunderstorms. Precisely as in baryogenesis. But I guess there really was no baryogenesis, right? Those positrons and electrons actually have been around forever and ever. Just like the polar jets. No baryogenesis required. Right? We know that because electrons and positrons don't decay. Therefore they must have been around forever, right?

You were challenged to provide an example of an observed physical phenomenon that is infinite. You have failed yet again to back your claims with evidence. I'll be adding this thread to the list of threads where you lied.

contHouston, I think we may have a problem. Since electrons and positrons are ALWAYS being produced NOW all across space everywhere, space must be swamped with these charges. How can we find any air to breathe?

What are you on about, mate? You seem to be trying hard to misconstrue in order to construct a Stawman-fueled 'Seeker2 world' of your own; rather than trying understanding what is being explained to you.

The universe exists. The polar jets are recycling processes in an existing universe having all sorts of processes going on all over the cosmos at various scales.

The Occams Razor principles applied to said observations indicate that THE objective Universe (as distinct from your Stawman-feuled 'Seeker2 World') and the recycling going on in it all over the place at various spatiotemporal evolutionary scales, is an infinite/eternal process/extent.

If your personal beliefs won't allow that objective observation, or Occams Razor application to same in order to obtain a scientific/logical starting premise requiring the least number of assumptions, then perhaps you should abandon your Strawman-fueled 'Seeker2 World' and join the reality-based world around us all. :)

Please. There is only one Occams Razor principle. You don't get your choice. The choice you make are between the competing hypotheses (views, as you call it).

are what indicates the starting point view

Occams Razor has nothing to do with the starting point view or hypothesis. You need competing hypotheses before applying the principle. I would hope before you go throwing out opinions that your hypotheses are plausible. That helps make them competitive.

You were challenged to provide an example of an observed physical phenomenon that is infinite.

What's the matter with you, DS! You missing EVERYTHING important happening in mainstream in recent years?

Re TEMPORAL status/claims from BB:

Prof Penrose admits there WAS a BEFORE-BB universal state; hence until you/other can prove that THE universe has some 'Beginning in/of Time' or 'Ending in/of Time', then ETERNAL UNIVERSE is DEFAULT Occams-Razor-indicated view!

Re SPATIAL status claims from Inflation (and hence BB etc):

Prof Steinhardt admits that NEVER had tenable scientific/logical support since first proposed; hence INFINITE spatial extent is again DEFAULT Occams Razor -indicated view!

PS: Also look for interviews/video a few years back, wherein Sean Carroll and Saul Perlmutter BOTH said CMB evidence/analysis ALSO indicates universe is infinite/eternal. :)

What are you on about, mate? You seem to be trying hard to misconstrue in order to construct a Stawman-fueled 'Seeker2 world' of your own; rather than trying understanding what is being explained to you.

Please. The only thing being explained to me is sweet-smelling snake oil using chopped word salad.

There is only one Occams Razor principle. You don't get your choice. The choice you make are between the competing hypotheses (views, as you call it).

are what indicates the starting point view

Occams Razor has nothing to do with the starting point view or hypothesis. You need competing hypotheses before applying the principle. I would hope before you go throwing out opinions that your hypotheses are plausible. That helps make them competitive.

Occams Razor principles CAN BE applied to an initial observation/set of observations, without any initial need to have an 'alternative' observation/set of observations at hand. If initial observation/set of observations indicates "Universe eternal/infinite" based on least number of assumptions, then that Occams Razor based DEFAULT view is starting point. :)

@RC attempts to substitute opinion for fact. The opinion is that the universe is infinite; the facts are we cannot substantiate the existence of anything beyond 100 billion light years. @RC is trying to use FUD again. And gets caught again.

Da Schneib

Those choices, when boiled down to the minimum assumptions needed, indicate which 'view' most satisfies the Occams Razor application. Get the subtle distinction yet, Seeker2?

I'm sorry. What distinction? Too subtle for me I guess.

Between the least assumption principle and the indicated default view which automatically is the starting pint for all other views which would compete with that starting view based on the least assumptions base applied to initial observation/set of observations.

Just as the Modern Scientific Method starts with observation, then applies logics/reality-based test to that observation. In the case of the Occams Razor 'method', the "test" is: "how many assumptions are needed to make plausible model of said observation/set of observations; and are they the least number of assumptions compared to the number of assumptions for any later model trying to replace Occams Razor-indicated DEFAULT.

Also look for interviews/video a few years back, wherein Sean Carroll and Saul Perlmutter BOTH said CMB evidence/analysis ALSO indicates universe is infinite/eternal. :)

Good luck with that one, suckers!

Are you calling Carroll and Perlmutter liars?

Hardly.

Good.

Or those, who take their considered views based on their professional work into consideration, "suckers"? Not very nice, Seeker

The suckers are the ones who go looking for your interviews/video.

So you DISCOURAGE people from finding things out on their own? You would prefer they remain uninformed of relevant important facts? Is that why you seem so stuck in your personal beliefs instead of keeping abreast of recent mainstream objective scientific discovery/reviews which threaten those said personal beliefs; because you are too lazy/afraid to look for the facts? Not a good look for someone who calls him/her self "Seeker2", Seeker2! Not good at all. Go find, 'seeker'. :)

This claim ignores both the ekpyrotic hypothesis and the quantum fluctuation origin hypothesis; the second is the foundation of the ?CDM theory.

Now you're just 'willy-nilly' using terms you found in wiki, DS, without 'clue one' they are NON-Sequitur in the context of my point. Allow me to demonstrate:

First, DS, to your Ekpyrotic 'willy-':

wiki: The ekpyrotic universe is a cosmological model of the early universe that explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos. The model has also been incorporated in the cyclic universe theory (or ekpyrotic cyclic universe theory), which proposes a complete cosmological history, both the past and future.

The first usage involves a 'early universe' aspect only, having nothing to say about question of infinity/eternity at all; while the second usage involves a cyclic universal process which AUTOMATICALLY IMPLIES an infinite/eternal state wherein that never-ending process can 'occur'.